Wright v. Wright, s. 91-0787

• Citation: 613 So.2d 1330
• Decision Date: 09 December 1992
• Docket Number: Nos. 91-0787,91-1254,s. 91-0787
• Parties: 17 Fla. L. Week. D2763 Barry B. WRIGHT, Appellant, v. Melinda S. WRIGHT, Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)

Page 1330

613 So.2d 1330

17 Fla. L. Week. D2763

Barry B. WRIGHT, Appellant, v. Melinda S. WRIGHT, Appellee.

Nos. 91-0787, 91-1254.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

Fourth District.

Dec. 9, 1992.

Clarification and Rehearing Denied March 18, 1993.

Jane Kreusler-Walsh of Klein & Walsh, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Elaine Johnson James of Nason, Gildan, Yeager, Gerson & White, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Jennifer S. Carroll of Metzger, Sonneborn & Rutter, P.A., West Palm Beach, for intervenor-Metzger, Sonneborn & Rutter, P.A.

POLEN, Judge.

The former husband, Barry B. Wright, is the appellant in consolidated appeals from an amended final judgment of dissolution of marriage. He was also the petitioner below. Appellee former wife, Melinda S. Wright, was initially represented by the law firm of Metzger, Sonneborn & Rutter, P.A. That firm is an intervenor in this appeal to defend the trial court's award to the wife of $20,000 in past due attorney's fees which the husband never paid after the wife dismissed that firm. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.

The parties married on April 20, 1985, and separated May 8, 1990. A child was born to the parties on November 3, 1985. At the time of trial, the husband was fifty-seven years old and the wife was thirty-nine. Both are in good health. The wife is a high school graduate who worked in real estate development at the time of the marriage and earned between $20,000 and $25,000 per year. The parties agreed that the wife would not work after the child was born. Accordingly, the wife allowed her real estate license to lapse. The husband is a self-made man who became wealthy through his business and sales management positions with various companies.

In 1969, the husband started his own company, Temporaries, Inc. He ran this company during the marriage, but eventually sold it to an English company, Blue Arrow, which later became known as Manpower. Despite the sale to Blue Arrow, the husband remained as the company's Chief Executive Officer until 1988 and as a consultant until 1990. During this time, the husband received substantial compensation for his services. ¹ As a result, the parties lived a lavish life-style during their marriage which included expenditures amounting to approximately $3,500,000 on living expenses. This included an expenditure exceeding half a million dollars to decorate their Palm Beach home.

In its equitable distribution scheme, the trial court found that all but 140,000 remaining shares in Manpower titled in the husband's name were marital assets. ² It awarded the wife, inter alia, $100,000 cash, the balance remaining of a $104,000 trust account with the wife's lawyer, four club memberships, the marital home (with responsibility for the mortgages, interest, principal, taxes and other household expenses), two of the parties' five automobiles, and $4,000 per month in rehabilitative alimony for eighteen (18) months to be followed by permanent periodic alimony of $2,000 per month. The court also awarded the wife $2,500 per month in child support, reasonable medical and dental expenses, medical and hospitalization insurance, and fifty percent of her attorney's fees and costs.

The husband first argues that the trial court effected a lopsided distribution of assets, which he claims resulted in the wife's receipt of the bulk of the liquid assets and none of the assets the husband pledged in his acquisition of certain loans to fund his business ventures. To support his argument, he provides charts labeled "Statement of Marital and Nonmarital Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth," as well as a "Plan of Equitable Distribution," both of which reflect his accountant's testimony at trial. We note, however, that the amended final judgment shows that the trial court found the wife's accountant to be more credible than the husband's. The trial court stated:

The testimony of the parties' accountants conflicted in several material regards. The court finds the methodology and testimony of the wife's accountant to be more persuasive as to the valuation of assets and the tracing of marital and premarital assets. The court therefore gave greater weight to the testimony of the wife's accountant in this Amended Final Judgment.

These are issues of fact we will not disturb on appeal without a showing of an abuse of discretion. See Hamlet v. Hamlet, 583 So.2d 654 (Fla.1991); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980). In particular, the husband questions the trial court's characterization of certain stock as marital assets; he contends that the court confused a premarital block of shares with shares the husband purchased during the marriage. However, the stock valuations, as well as the characterization of certain stock as marital as opposed to premarital, follows the testimony of the wife's accountant. The wife's accountant traced the origin of all of the securities. Those of an origin not clearly traceable to a time prior to the marriage he characterized as marital. Contrary to the husband's claim, the record supports, through the wife's accountant's testimony, that Blue Arrow, the company that purchased Temporaries, Inc., was willing to pay a premium of $29 per share to each shareholder in order to effect an...