I know that this is not a 'science' and there are many factors to consider, but I'm looking for something general..
There is something that I need to verify in terms of my ex's financial disclosure.
She claims her 2005 car in 2006 as an asset of $10,000 ($31k sticker price).
She buys a new car in January of 2010 and I have proof that the dealer has given her a $10k trade-in allowance.
That having been said, the one thing that CAN be said proved with evidence is that the vehicle had a $10,000 asset value in 2010 which leads me to question how it could be listed as being the same asset value on the valuation date and that just can't be. My thinking being that if a vehicle has $10k of asset in January of 2010, then the asset value on the valuation date must have been higher, it should have been higher by the amount that it had been depreciated by between Oct 2006 and Jan 2010 if you get my thinking. The problem is how to establish the value of this asset in the past. I know that there won't be an exact science in an appraisal - especially in the past, but I would position it that the asset value probably should have been at least $14,000 in October of 2006.
I can't quantify of justify how I come up with $14k though, but it "feels" right. Any thoughts on how I can frame my argument to support my assertion that the asset value MUST have been much higher than she had calculated?
By the way, I do have a black book sheet from them in the fall of 2007 that claims the the car has a black book value of $8600 but I consider that invalid since 2.5 years later, the actual value she derived from the asset was higher, and it was 2.5 years later.
There is something that I need to verify in terms of my ex's financial disclosure.
She claims her 2005 car in 2006 as an asset of $10,000 ($31k sticker price).
She buys a new car in January of 2010 and I have proof that the dealer has given her a $10k trade-in allowance.
That having been said, the one thing that CAN be said proved with evidence is that the vehicle had a $10,000 asset value in 2010 which leads me to question how it could be listed as being the same asset value on the valuation date and that just can't be. My thinking being that if a vehicle has $10k of asset in January of 2010, then the asset value on the valuation date must have been higher, it should have been higher by the amount that it had been depreciated by between Oct 2006 and Jan 2010 if you get my thinking. The problem is how to establish the value of this asset in the past. I know that there won't be an exact science in an appraisal - especially in the past, but I would position it that the asset value probably should have been at least $14,000 in October of 2006.
I can't quantify of justify how I come up with $14k though, but it "feels" right. Any thoughts on how I can frame my argument to support my assertion that the asset value MUST have been much higher than she had calculated?
By the way, I do have a black book sheet from them in the fall of 2007 that claims the the car has a black book value of $8600 but I consider that invalid since 2.5 years later, the actual value she derived from the asset was higher, and it was 2.5 years later.
Comment