Harrington v. Mendieta

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Harrington v. Mendieta

927 So. 2d 96, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5357, 2006 WL 932065

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 12, 2006

DocketNo. 3D05-923

StatusPublished

This text of 927 So. 2d 96 (Harrington v. Mendieta) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harrington v. Mendieta, 927 So. 2d 96, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5357, 2006 WL 932065 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

FLETCHER, Judge.

In this dissolution of marriage action, the former husband, Thomas J. Harrington, appeals from a final judgment which denied his claim for equitable distribution of certain artwork inherited by Raquel Mendieta, the former wife, during the marriage. We affirm.

The former wife’s sister, Ana Mendieta, an artist who died tragically in 1985, left behind artwork valued at approximately $175,000. The artwork was initially inherited by their mother, but when she passed away in 1989, it became the property of the former wife and her brother. At the time of these proceedings, the subject artwork had increased in value to over $4,000,000. The husband claims that the increase resulted from the wife’s marital efforts, thereby making the enhanced value marital property subject to equitable distribution. After listening to the testimony of both parties and several art experts, however, the trial court determined the appreciated value of the artwork was due to other factors. In considering factual issues resolved by the trial court, an appellate court must construe the evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing party. Shudlick v. Shudlick, 618 So.2d 740 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Here, there was more than sufficient competent evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that the enhanced value of the artwork was not marital property.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment below.¹

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FLETCHER, Judge.

In this dissolution of marriage action, the former husband, Thomas J. Harrington, appeals from a final judgment which denied his claim for equitable distribution of certain artwork inherited by Raquel Mendieta, the former wife, during the marriage. We affirm.

The former wife’s sister, Ana Mendieta, an artist who died tragically in 1985, left behind artwork valued at approximately $175,000. The artwork was initially inherited by their mother, but when she passed away in 1989, it became the property of the former wife and her brother. At the time of these proceedings, the subject artwork had increased in value to over $4,000,000. The husband claims that the increase resulted from the wife’s marital efforts, thereby making the enhanced value marital property subject to equitable distribution. After listening to the testimony of both parties and several art experts, however, the trial court determined the appreciated value of the artwork was due to other factors. In considering factual issues resolved by the trial court, an appellate court must construe the evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing party. Shudlick v. Shudlick, 618 So.2d 740 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Here, there was more than sufficient competent evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that the enhanced value of the artwork was not marital property.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment below.¹

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

927 So. 2d 96, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5357, 2006 WL 932065, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrington-v-mendieta-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack