discount was inappropriate in a divorce settlement ease because there is no change of ownership. See also Money v. Money, 852 P.2d 1158, 1161-62 (Alaska 1993) (noting the limited marketability of a minority share in a closely held corporation); In re Marriage of Jorgensen, 180 Mont. 294, 590 P.2d 606, 610 (1979) (mentioning circumstances in which it is proper to apply a minority discount in a closely held corporation); Bowen v. Bowen, 96 N.J. 36, 473 A.2d 73, 81-82 (N.J.1984) (emphasizing the importance of expert testimony regarding the value of closely held corporate stock); Belt v. Belt, 65 Or.App. 606, 672 P.2d 1205, 1208 (1983) (applying a minority discount when determining the value of a closed corporation); In re Marriage of Reiling, 66 Or.App. 284, 673 P.2d 1360, 1364 (1983) (<HOLDING>); Cross v. Cross, 586 P.2d 547, 549 (Wyo.1978)
holding extracontractual claims fail when denial of a claim is held to be appropriate holding it is appropriate to apply a discount to a closely held corporation holding that it is not holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion holding that an unexplained failure to follow a prescribed treatment is a specific reason to discount credibility