Caroline Finch

Law & Valuation
Professor Palmiter
Spring, 1999


Text of Paper


The majority of states have ruled that goodwill should be factored into determining a professional association’s value for the purposes of equitable distribution.  The courts that choose to include goodwill do so because they consider it to be an asset, while the courts that choose not to include it state that it is because it is too speculative.


1.  How is the existence of goodwill determined?

2.  How is the goodwill of a dental practice valued in an equitable distribution setting?
1.  Courts have varied methods for determining the existence of goodwill, usually by examining a set of factors.
2.  Several different methods are used, including: capitalization of excess earnings, straight capitalization, data sources, and the fair market value method.
There are several ways to define goodwill.  Generally, it is an intangible benefit acquired by a business through its reputation and patronage by repeat customers.  It can be broken down into two categories with regard to professional services. First is practice goodwill, which is associated with the entity more than the professional, such as through location. Second is personal goodwill which centers on the individual performing the services.
It must first be determined whether goodwill exists in an entity.  Courts have different approaches to determining this, but a Revenue Ruling by the IRS has offered guidance, stating that it depends upon the excess of net earnings over a fair return on the net tangible assets.  Other factors influencing goodwill include the prestige of a business, the ownership of a brand name, and long term success in the operation. However, each court seems to have its own method in determining whether goodwill exists.
Once it has been determined that goodwill exists, it must be valued.  There are many different methods used to value goodwill. One method is the capitalization of excess earnings method.  This involves four steps, examining a comparable practice, averaging net income over a period of time, comparing the average to the norm, and multiplying the excess by a capitalization factor. However, this method has been criticized with regard to equitable distribution because it converts a portion of the spouse’s future income into a property right.  A second method is the straight capitalization method.  The average net profits are capitalized at a specific rate, which is selected as a function of risk. This figure is to represent the total value of the business, from which the value of tangible assets is subtracted to determine the value of goodwill. This approach is criticized because it fails to consider excess earnings. A third method used is examining data sources. The Goodwill Registry is a source of information about goodwill reported by medical and dental practices. It provides objective data to assist in valuation.
A final method used for valuing goodwill is the fair market value method.  Florida chooses not to value personal goodwill when valuing the goodwill of a professional business. The case of Weinstock v. Weinstock involved the valuation of goodwill of a dental practice in the context of equitable distribution using the fair market value method. In this case, the court followed a precedent, Thompson v. Thompson, where goodwill was to be valued as the monetary value in excess of the tangible assets which is separate form the reputation of the individual professional. The dentist’s expert witness used the excess earnings method to value goodwill, but stated that there was no way to prove that goodwill existed independently of the dentist’s reputation. The wife’s expert compared similar dental practices that had been sold recently.  The trial court accepted the wife’s expert’s value.  On appeal, the husband argued that this did not follow the Thompson requirement that personal goodwill be subtracted.  The court agreed and stated that sales must be ones where the original dentist completely separates himself from the practice. The court viewed the Thompson method, a fair market value approach, as a way of separating personal goodwill from professional goodwill.  As the wife’s expert had not compared sales of practices where the dentist completely dissociated himself, his calculations could not be used, and goodwill was not included as a marital asset because it had not been proven that professional goodwill existed separately from the dentist.
The approach in Weinstock is worth criticizing because the decision to separate professional goodwill from personal goodwill seems impossible, especially with regard to a dental practice.  People do not go to dentists because of brand names or location, but because of the reputation of the professional associated with the practice.  By applying the Thompson method, the spouse of a dentist will not receive the rightful share of the business, which is unfair.



I am constantly surprised at how "useful" law school is.  For instance, last night I had a conversation with my father.  He knew that I had been casually asking around for advice about valuing and selling dental practices.  He asked me, "So, what did your professor say it was worth?"  This, from a man with a doctorate.  I was appalled, and I tried to explain that valuing his practice is not so easy as stating a year end gross and receiving an accurate value of its worth.
Aside from the different methods of number crunching, I tried to explain the value and unique issues associated with goodwill.  Of course, he is not so unsophisticated that he does not understand what goodwill is, but he does not fully understand how it may be quantified.  Neither did I, so I have undertaken to figure out how goodwill in a dental practice may be valued.  However, most of the cases deal with the valuation of goodwill in an equitable distribution setting, so this question has now become: how do the courts value goodwill in an equitable distribution setting?

The Valuation of a Dental Practice is Unique

One would think that the valuation of a medical practice and its attendant goodwill would be analogous to that of a dental practice, but it is not.[1]  The valuation of a dental practice is unique, and must be considered separately from a medical practice.  According to an ALI-ABA Continuing Legal Education seminar, the value of medical, but not dental practices has dropped over the past decade.[2]  The reason for this is primarily a lack of control over the patient population, as patients are now managed by HMOs and other managed care contractors.[3]  The result of this is that the income stream is uncertain, and Medicare and fraud abuse rules have affected economic arrangements.[4]  Accordingly, this affects the fair market value of the tangible assets, the collectible accounts receivable, and goodwill.[5]  As a practical matter, it is critical to value the goodwill of a dental practice because often the value of a practice not including the goodwill is substantially less than it is with goodwill.
Should Goodwill Be Factored In
Determining a Professional Association’s
Value for the Purposes of Equitable Distribution?
The Court of Appeals in Maryland struggled with this very question, so it conducted a survey of all the states.[6]  The majority have ruled that goodwill should be factored into determining a professional association’s value for the purposes of equitable distribution.[7] The other half, obviously, disagree.[8]  A few states are in limbo, holding that whether goodwill should be awarded depends on a case-by-case analysis[9]  The usual reason given for including goodwill in an equitable distribution is that goodwill is an asset, albeit an intangible one.  The courts which do not like to award goodwill as a part of an equitable distribution usually cite the speculative nature of goodwill.[10]
Defining Goodwill
There are several different ways to define goodwill, and each has its own subtleties.  One court defined goodwill as "an expectation of continued and repeated public patronage, the value of an on-going business in excess of its fixtures and accounts receivable, and a supplement to earning capacity but not the earning capacity itself."[11] Other courts define goodwill slightly differently.  Perhaps the best court-definition reads as follows:
[G]oodwill has traditionally been defined as the benefit acquired by a business beyond the mere value of its tangible assets as a result of general patronage and encouragement which it receives from repeat or habitual customers on account of its local position or common celebrity or reputation for skill or expertise in the community.[12]
Still other courts look to outside resources (of which there is no shortage) for definitions of goodwill. For example, Valuing Small Businesses and Professional Practices defines goodwill "as the ability to earn a rate of return in excess of a normal rate of return on the net assets of the business."[13]
Many courts and commentators talk about goodwill in the more general contexts, such as the ones described above.  Others like to slice up goodwill into little pieces.  For instance, one commentator asserts that goodwill within a professional service field such as dentistry may be broken down into two categories:  practice goodwill and personal goodwill.[14]  Practice goodwill is associated more with the entity than with the professional.[15]  That is, a patient may choose a dentist for his location or because his chart file is already with that dentist, rather than for the quality of his services.  Often, practice goodwill outweighs personal goodwill in a dental practice.[16]  Personal goodwill centers on the individual who is performing the services.  It depends more on the professional reputation and not so much on the more tangible factors of location or the existence of chart files.[17]
Basically, goodwill is an asset apart from earnings, no matter who defines it.  Obviously, goodwill will be different for every dental practice.  In fact, some dental practices may not have any goodwill at all.
Evidence of Goodwill
Even with a definition of goodwill, sometimes it can be hard to figure out if a practice has goodwill, or how much goodwill a particular practice has relative to other practices.  The first step in analyzing goodwill is to determine whether it exists.  Courts have taken vastly different approaches to determining the existence of goodwill.  In re Marriage Graf, the Colorado Appeals Court had to determine whether the husband had a property right (and therefore goodwill) in the business which bore his name.[18]  The factors the court examined included:
1) the husband set his own hours;
2) the husband decided the location of his office;
3) the husband hired and fired his own employees and set their salary;
4) the husband selected and purchased his own supplies;
5) the husband was characterized in his contract as an independent contractor; and
6) the husband reported his income as that of a business on Schedule C of his income tax return.[19]
Revenue Ruling 59-60 may also offer a valuator guidance on the presence of goodwill in a professional corporation.  The Revenue Ruling basically chalks up goodwill to "earning capacity," and it says its "presence rests upon the excess of net earnings over and above a fair return on the net tangible assets."[20]  Other factors which influence the presence of goodwill may be the prestige and renown of the business, the ownership of a trade or brand name, and a record of successful operation over a prolonged period of time in a particular locality.[21]  Interestingly, Revenue Ruling 59-60 does not appear to be widely used in conjunction with valuing a professional practice in an equitable distribution setting.[22]
Even though the valuation of a medical practice is not analogous to that of a dental practice today, ten years ago, before the HMOs, this was the case.[23]  In 1990, the American Medical Association [AMA] published a guide to buying and selling medical practices.[24]  The guide lists the following factors that influence goodwill:
1) medical specialty;
2) referral sources;
3) practice location;
4) practice demographics;
5) amount of competition;
6) financial condition of the practice;
7) seller's reputation among colleagues;
8) collection ratio;
9) practice efficiency;
10) operational considerations;
11) hours worked;
12) medical records; and
13) ease of transition (which is not applicable in an equitable distribution setting).[25]
Florida courts seem to be some of the stingiest when it comes to goodwill.  Florida courts have adopted the philosophy that goodwill is comprised of professional goodwill and personal goodwill.  This is a messy philosophy and the Florida courts have confessed that valuing goodwill is particularly difficult because “the reputation of the individual practitioner and the good will of his enterprise are often inextricably interwoven.”[26]  In order to determine what is goodwill, and what is the reputation of the professional, the Young court[27] found that the only “acceptable” evidence of goodwill was only when there was “evidence of a recent actual sale of a similarly situated professional practice, an offer to purchase such a practice, or expert testimony and testimony of members of the subject profession as to the existence of good will in a similar practice in the relevant geographic and professional market.”[28]
It seems clear that the existence of goodwill depends on who is valuing the business, and under what criteria.  Obviously, depending on the jurisdiction, a valuator may have to approach a valuation in the manner favored in that jurisdiction.
Methods of Valuing Goodwill

Once the valuator confirms the presence of goodwill, he must value it.  As with a determination of the presence of goodwill, the actual valuation of goodwill is not a science.  Again, different courts and different individuals value goodwill, surprise, differently.

1.  Unique Formulas or Rules of Thumb

Because there are so many ways to value goodwill, not all methods end up falling under the more traditional formulations.  Sometimes a valuator just makes up a method of valuation.  None of the following methods seem to represent a method of valuation in which a predictable result may be reached; however , if you wanted to be able to manufacture your own numbers, you might want to try one.
In Sorenson v. Sorenson, the wife's appraiser used a formula to estimate the goodwill of the husband's dental practice based upon the following factors:  the length of time the practice had been operating, its location, number of patients, profitability, accounts receivable, and an evaluation of the transferability of profit to a prospective buyer to determine goodwill to estimate the goodwill of her husband's dental practice.[29]  The court accepted the appraiser's figures based on these factors.[30]
In Lopez v. Lopez, a California appeals court sets out five basic factors to consider in calculating the goodwill of professional practice.[31]  The factors include:
1) the age and health of the professional;
2) the professional's demonstrated past earning power;
3) the professional's reputation in the community for judgment, skill, and knowledge;
4) the professional's comparative professional success; and
5) the nature and duration of the professional's practice, either as a sole proprietor or as a contributing member of a partnership or professional corporation.
An ALI-ABA continuing legal education seminar also set out some general rules of thumb for the practitioners who might be involved in the valuation of an accounting, dental, engineering, or veterinary course.  This information suggests that when a professional is selling his practice, the practice value is 60-90% of one year’s gross collections.[32]  Also, the payment is allocated at “book value or net fair market value of the stock, representing hard assets, and a salary deferral of between three and eight years for the balance due to accounts receivable and other value.”[33]
Note these methods may be extremely speculative.  With regard to the ALI-ABA method, there is a HUGE difference between 60% and 90% of a gross practice value.  Assuming a practice has a gross collection of $400,000, that would be a $120,000 variance in price.

2.  Capitalization of Excess Earnings

In many cases where a court values personal goodwill the courts will use the capitalization of excess earnings method to value the practice.[34]  The excess earnings approach involves four steps:  (1) ascertain what a professional of comparable experience, expertise, education and age would be earning in the same general locale (the norm); (2) determine and average the professional's net income before federal and state income taxes for a period of years, preferably five; (3) compare the actual average with the 'norm'; and (4) multiply 'the excess' by a capitalization factor.[35]  Interestingly, the excess earnings method has been criticized in the equitable distribution context because the excess earnings method converts a portion of the spouse’s future income into a property right.  Therefore, a spouse may be obtain the benefits of a spouse’s goodwill measured in future earnings, and alimony, which also strips away the payor spouse’s future earnings.[36]
3.  Straight Capitalization Method
Another method for determining the value of professional goodwill is the straight capitalization method.  The average net profits, usually over a five-year period, are capitalized at a definite rate such as 15 to 20 percent.[37]  The capitalization rate is selected as a function of the relative risk of the business.[38]  After the valuator capitalizes the average net earnings have been capitalized, the resulting figure is assumed to represent the total value of the practice.[39]  Note this figure is the total for the business, so the value of the tangible assets must be subtracted from the total value in order to determine goodwill.[40]  The straight capitalization method is often attacked because often goodwill is measured as a function of excess earnings, and this approach fails to consider excess earnings.[41]
4.  Data Sources
Compared to all the formulas and methods listed above, "The Goodwill Registry"[42]  ("Registry") is a more unorthodox aid for use in valuing a professional corporation.[43]  Published annually, it is a source of information about goodwill reported by various medical and dental practices across the country.[44]  It is one of the few sources of objective data available to assist the practitioner in the valuation.[45] The data are segregated by medical specialty and include the following:
1) the year of the event generating the valuation of goodwill;
2) the state in which the event occurred and whether the location was urban or suburban;
3) the context in which goodwill was valued (such things as outright sale or divorce);
4) the valuation method used;
5) gross practice revenue;
6) the overhead percentage;
7) the price for the practice;
8) the value allocated to goodwill; and
9) the goodwill percentage or the value of goodwill divided by gross practice revenue.[46]
5.  Weinstock and the Fair Market Value Method
As noted above, Florida does not value personal goodwill.  One of the more interesting cases is Weinstock v. Weinstock, decided by the Court of Appeals in Florida.[47] Weinstock involved the valuation of goodwill attributable to a dental practice for the purposes of equitable distribution using Florida's unique twist on the fair market value method.  In Weinstock, the court adhered to the standard set under Thompson v. Thompson for evaluating goodwill in a professional practice.[48]  Under Thompson, a court has to consider goodwill if the business has “monetary value over and above its tangible assets and cases in progress which is separate and distinct from the presence and reputation of the individual [professional].”[49]  The dentist-husband’s expert witness valued goodwill based on the excess earnings approach, described above, and found that the practice had some goodwill.[50]  However, the expert also testified there was no way to prove that goodwill existed independently of the “husband’s goodwill, that is, his personal demeanor, philosophy, and reputation.[51]  The wife’s expert witness was an ex-dentist who has become a consultant for dentists who needed an evaluation of a practice for the purposes of sales, purchases, loans, and dissolution proceedings.[52]  He compared the gross sales of eleven other similar Florida dental practices sold between 1991 and 1992 to the husband's practice.[53]  The wife’s expert found that apart from assets and accounts receivable, the husband’s practice was worth from $300,000 to $400,000.  The trial court found the goodwill to be worth $300,000, while they assessed the tangible assets at $40,000 and the accounts receivable at $65,000, for a total value of the practice at $405,000.[54]
On appeal the husband argued the wife’s appraiser failed to follow the Thompson requirement that personal goodwill be subtracted based on the reputation and presence of the practitioner.  Under Thompson, a court must determine the amount of “money that a willing buyer would pay a willing seller.  It is obvious that a willing buyer would not pay for that which he is not getting.  A willing seller of the assets of a professional association, once he sells, is no longer part of the business, and therefore the seller’s reputation cannot be part of the goodwill a willing buyer is purchasing.”[55]  The Weinstock court assumed the “sales” are ones in which the dentist wholly washes his hands of the practice.  Citing Thompson, the Weinstock court said, “[I]f goodwill depends upon the continued presence of a particular individual, such goodwill, by definition, is not a marketable asset distinct from any individual.”[56]  Therefore, the court concludes, the Thompson method of valuation, which is a “fair market value approach”, provides a tidy way of separating the personal goodwill from professional goodwill.[57]
The wife’s expert had produced figures for the sale of similar practices in the area.[58]  However, none of the comparables came from practices which had been sold and in which the dentist completely dissociated himself from the practice.[59]  Therefore, the court found that the inclusion of goodwill as a marital asset was “improper because the evidence failed to establish a value for this goodwill apart from the husband’s continued presence.”[60]

Critique of Weinstock

Because most of the other valuation methods are nothing new (such as the capitalization of excess earnings method) or completely unquantifiable or arbitrary (hence, hard to criticize in an orderly fashion), I decided to take issue with the Weinstock decision.  Actually, I must confess Weinstock did not only win by default - I thought it was stupid decision.
First of all, Florida’s decision to separate professional goodwill from personal goodwill seems unnecessary.  The question just has to be asked:  is it really possible and valid to separate the two?  I do not think so.  Courts and commentators have all sorts of fancy definitions for goodwill, and I can understand the subtle differences in the definitions in an academic sense.  Yet it seems intuitive that goodwill should be caught up in the man who makes the practice.  Sure, goodwill may include the cache of a trade name, but in a smaller business it also includes the proprietor.  The proprietor is the person who interacts with customers, builds relationships, and makes the business run successfully.  If you think about it, it is very unlikely that a dental practice could have a lot of "professional goodwill” under the Florida definition.  For a dental practice, the allure is usually not in the cache of the name (like “The Ritz”) or in its location (like the kiosk under the Eiffel Tower), but rather the allure of its proprietor.  Therefore, if one strictly applies the Thompson standards, the spouse a dentist will never get anything.  This does not seem fair.  A going concern is worth more than its book value, especially a dental practice, and that difference is largely goodwill.  The non-dentist spouse should get his rightful share of the business.
Even if one does not find fault with the proposition of separating professional goodwill from personal goodwill the Weinstock decision may have been incorrectly decided.  I completely agree with the dissent.  First of all, as the dissenting judge, Judge Sharp, points out, the wife’s expert produced comparables and testified the husband’s practice had goodwill, as defined by the amount the fair market value of the practice exceeds the value of the tangible assets.[61]  While the rest of the Court completely disregard the wife’s expert because none of the dentists in the expert's comparables utterly “quit”, Judge Sharp contends that this is not that important.[62]  The wife’s expert did, after all, point out that having the dentist stay on after the sale of a practice could be detrimental to a new dentist because the new dentist would have to pay the old dentist, reducing the purchaser’s net return.[63]  Judge Sharp also did not think the comparable sales data should have been thrown out because the selling dentists remained with their practices for a short time.[64]  First of all, the fact that a professional may stay on with a practice for a short time to facilitate the transition to a purchaser does not mean there is no goodwill subject to equitable distribution.[65]  Also, as a matter of common sense, the Judge points out there is nothing in Thompson which required the use of comparables; Thompson only requires a “reasonable basis for an expert’s opinion concerning [the goodwill’s] existence and range of value.”[66]  Since the wife’s expert had valued hundreds of practices before, the Judge believed the expert was able to make a reasonable estimation of the value of the goodwill.[67]  Therefore, since this was an expert’s opinion on the value of the practice, the opinion was not necessarily contingent upon Weinstock remaining in his practice to give it value.[68]
Only one thing is clear when it comes to the valuation of goodwill in a dental practice in the equitable dissolution context:  a definitive value is a mercurial thing.   Depending on the method of valuation and the jurisdiction, who knows what value a court may ultimately assign to the goodwill. Besides, the numbers a valuator may plug into the formulas may be different.  (Basically, two people may use the same formula and come up with completely different results.)  In the end, the thing that pops into my mind is that old adage, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."  My advice:  if it's not too late, get a good prenuptial agreement. That way, the valuation of goodwill in a dental practice may have some certainty if the parties can agree on what method and what figures will be used for the valuation.  Hopefully, a little planning will keep this issue out of court.

[1]  Alson R. Martin, Entry and Exit Considerations for Owners of PCs and Other Personal Service Organizations,  C980 ALI-ABA 1729, 1733 (1995).
[2] Id.
[3]  Martin, supra note 3 at 1733.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Prahinski v. Prahinski, 321 Md. 227, 582 A.2d 784 (1988).
[7] Prahinski, citing Rostel v. Rostel, 622 P.2d 429, 430-32 (Alaska 1981), rev'd on other grounds, 749 P.2d 343 (Alaska 1988); Wisner v. Wisner, 129 Ariz. 333, 631 P.2d 115 (1981);  In re Marriage of Foster, 42 Cal.App.3d 577, 117 Cal.Rptr. 49 (1974); Golden v. Golden, 270 Cal.App.2d 401, 75 Cal.Rptr. 735 (1969); Mueller v. Mueller, 144 Cal.App.2d 245, 301 P.2d 90 (1956); In re Marriage of Nichols, 43 Colo.App. 383, 606 P.2d 1314 (1979); Wright v. Wright, 469 A.2d 803 (Del.Fam.Ct.1983); In re Marriage of Kapusta, 141 Ill.App.3d 1010, 96 Ill.Dec. 234, 491 N.E.2d 48 (1986); Porter v. Porter, 526 N.E.2d 219 (Ind.App.1988); Heller v. Heller, 672 S.W.2d 945 (Ky.Ct.App.1984); Rethman v. Rethman, 429 Mich. 868, 413 N.W.2d 679 (1987); Kowalesky v. Kowalesky, 148 Mich.App. 151, 384 N.W.2d 112, app. den., 425 Mich. 876 (1986); Roth v. Roth, 406 N.W.2d 77 (Minn. Ct.App.1987); Hanson v. Hanson, 738 S.W.2d 429 (Mo.1987); Taylor v. Taylor, 736 S.W.2d 388 (Mo.1987); In re Marriage of Hull, 219 Mont. 480, 712 P.2d 1317 (1986); Dugan v. Dugan, 92 N.J. 423, 457 A.2d 1 (1983); Hurley v. Hurley, 94 N.M. 641, 615 P.2d
[8] Prahinsky, citing Powell v. Powell, 231 Kan. 456, 648 P.2d 218 (1982);  Pearce v. Pearce, 482 So.2d 108 (La.1986);  Beasley v. Beasley, 359 Pa.Super. 20, 518 A.2d 545 (1986); Wood v. Wood, 378 S.E.2d 59 (S.C.App.1989); Smith v. Smith, 709 S.W.2d 588 (Tenn.Ct.App.1985); Austin v. Austin, 619 S.W.2d 290 (Tex.Civ.App.1981); Geesbreght v. Geesbreght, 570 S.W.2d 427 (Tex.Civ.App.1978); Nail v. Nail, 486 S.W.2d 761 (Tex.1972); Holbrook v. Holbrook, 103 Wis.2d 327, 309 N.W.2d 343 (1981).
[9] Prahinsky, citing Richmond v. Richmond, 779 P.2d 1211 (Alaska 1989); Wilson v. Wilson, 294 Ark. 194, 741 S.W.2d 640 (1987); Antolik v. Harvey, 7 Haw.App. 313, 761 P.2d 305 (1988); Taylor v. Taylor, 222 Neb. 721, 386 N.W.2d 851 (1986).
[10]  This is what I have gathered from my reading.
[11]  Shari Lutz, Valuing Goodwill: Factors to Consider and Sources of Information, 27 -DEC Colo. Law . 45, (1998).
[12]  Gary Zimmer, Professional Goodwill-A Contradiction in Terms, or Untapped Marital Asset,  48-MAR Or. St. B. Bull . 18, 18 (1988).
[13] Lutz, citing Pratt, Reilly, and Schweihs, Valuing Small Business and Professional Practices (3rd Ed.) (McGraw-Hill, 1998) at 726.
[14]  Zimmer, supra note 12, at 18.
[15]  S. Pratt, Valuing Small Business and Professional Corporations, 294 ( Dow-Jones Irwin  1986).
[16] Id.
[17]  Zimmer, supra note 12, at 18.
[18] In re Marriage Graf, 902 P.2d 402 (Colo.1992).
[19] Id.
[20]  Rev. Rul. 59-60.
[21] Id.
[22]  A WestLaw search only turned up 15 cases (in the "Allcases" database) which were even remotely relevant to its use in the context of a professional corporation.
[23]  This is my estimation.
[24]  To the best of my knowledge, the  American Dental Association  has not published an analogous guide.
[25]  Lutz, supra note 11, at 47, citing Buying and Selling Medical Practices:  A Valuation Guide (Chicago:  American Medical Association, 1990) at 39.
[26] Young v. Young, 600 So.2d 1140, 1142 (1992).
[27]  The Young decision followed the precedent-setting Thompson [Thompson v. Thompson, 576 So.2d 267 (1991)] decision, which established this idea of bifurcation of personal goodwill and professional goodwill. Young further refined Thompson.
[28] Young, at 1142.]
[29] Sorenson v. Sorenson, 769 P.2d 822 (Utah Ct. App. 1989).
[30] Id.
[31] Lopez v. Lopez, 98 CJ C.A.R. 3093.
[32]  Martin, supra note 1 at 1733.
[33]  Martin, supra note 1 at 1733.
[34]  Zimmer, supra note 12, at 18, citing Dugan v. Dugan, 92 N.J. 423, 457 A2d 1 (1983).
[35] Id.
[36]  Zimmer, supra note 12, at 19.
[37]  Kane, Valuation, FLMI MA-CLE 13-I (1996).
[38] Id.
[39] Id.
[40] Id.
[41] Id.
[42]  I looked all over the internet for the Registry and I could not find it anywhere.
[43]  Lutz, supra note 12, at 46, referring to "The Goodwill Registry" (Plymouth Meeting, Penn.: The Health Care Group, 1997).  This publication can be purchased from The Health Care Group, Suite 200, 140 W. Germantown Pike, Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462: (800) 473-0032; fax (610)828-3658.
[44] Id.
[45]  Lutz, supra note 12, at 46.
[46] Id.
[47] Weinstock v. Weinstock, 634 So.2d 775 (Fla Ct. App. 1994).
[48] Weinstock, supra note 47.
[49] Weinstock, citing Thompson v. Thompson, 576 So.2d 267 (Fla.1991).
[50] Weinstock at 776.
[51] Id.
[52] Id.
[53] Id.
[54] Id.
[55] Weinstock, citing Young v. Young, 600 So.2d at 1143 (Goshorn, C.J. concurring).
[56] Weinstock at 777.
[57] Id.
[58] Id. at 778.
[59] Id.
[60] Id.
[61] Weinstock, supra note 47, at 779.
[62] Id.
[63] Id.
[64] Id.
[65] Id., citing In the Matter of Fleege, 91 Wash.2d 324, 588 P.2d 1136 (1979).
[66] Id.
[67] Id.
[68] Weinstock, supra note 47, at 779.