                              15
settled that the goodwill of a business is generally not considered when placing a

value on a professional practice upon divorce. 26 We conclude that based on the

nature of Kareneva Law Firm, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding

the entire law practice—assets and liabilities—to wife.

      Additionally, the nature of the parties’ vehicles supports their division. Wife

asked for the Lexus SUV because it was the car she drove before the separation; it

was purchased so she could transport her three children and mother, who lives

with her; and, based on its size and safety,Husband testified that he had been employed as a

program manager in the computer field, earning approximately $10,000.00 per

month, or $120,000.00 per year, plus a yearly bonus of approximately $25,000.00.

Although he was laid off in late 2003, his salary continued until February 2004, and

he could have elected to remain with the company in a different capacity but

declined to do so. 34 After being laid off, husband unsuccessfully looked for work

before deciding to help wife with her law practice. 35 After the parties separated in

late 2004, husband eventually found employment in June 2005 as an independent

insurance agent where he, at the time of trial, earned $600.00 per month. 36

Husband explained that he could not find a job in his field because many of the

computer jobs were outsourced overseas and because