The Texas Court of Appeals recently affirmed a lower court's ruling regarding the property division in the divorce case of Alper Uzmezler and Ekim Stevens. This decision, made on August 28, 2026, affects how community property is valued and divided in divorce cases, particularly when businesses are involved.
Uzmezler appealed the trial court's decision, arguing that it erred in valuing a community-property business, Anka Labs, at $1.5 million. The court's ruling underscores the importance of expert testimony in determining business valuations during divorce proceedings.
Background
Alper Uzmezler and Ekim Stevens were married on June 28, 2010, and they have one child together. In September 2021, Stevens filed for divorce, citing insupportability, cruelty, and adultery as grounds for the separation. Uzmezler countered with similar claims of insupportability and cruelty.
During the divorce proceedings, Stevens sought a larger share of the community estate, claiming Uzmezler's actions contributed to the marriage's breakdown. The couple owned two businesses, BAS Services and Graphics, LLC (BASSG) and Anka Labs, both operating in the smart-building industry. The trial court held a two-day bench trial to resolve issues related to child support, property characterization, and the division of their community estate.
The Ruling
The Texas Court of Appeals, led by Justice Gisela D. Triana, ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in valuing Anka Labs at $1.5 million based on the testimony of Stevens's valuation expert, Michael Benaglio. The court noted, "When conflicting evidence of value exists, a trial court is permitted to assign a value within the range of evidence."
Uzmezler challenged the valuation, arguing that the trial court should have relied on his expert's lower valuation of approximately $326,000. However, the appeals court found that the trial court had sufficient evidence to support its decision, stating that the valuation fell within the range of numbers provided by the expert testimony.
Impact
This ruling is significant for future divorce cases involving business valuations. It highlights the discretion trial courts have in determining property division and the importance of expert testimony in these decisions. The court's affirmation reinforces the idea that trial courts can blend evidence from competing experts to arrive at a fair valuation.
The decision also emphasizes that the trial court's findings should be respected unless there is clear evidence of abuse of discretion. This ruling could influence how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly in terms of valuing community property businesses during divorce proceedings.
What's Next
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Uzmezler plans to appeal this decision further. There are no related cases pending at this time.