top
shadow
Family Law Consulting logo Family Law Consulting logo Family Law Consulting logo
Family Law Consulting logo Family Law Consulting logo Family Law Consulting logo
Family Law Consulting logo Family Law Consulting logo Family Law Consulting logo


What we do

How we work

Who we are

What others say

Links

Contact

Family Law Reader
article
cases
periodicals
archive

Family Law Reader

January 2003

Equitable Distribution of Tchotchkes

Laura W. Morgan

One spouse’s piece of junk is another spouse’s priceless heirloom. The recent case of Alley v. Brotherton, No. 88,156 (Kansas Court of Appeals, November 27, 2002), where a wife was held in contempt for failing to turn over to the husband “family memorabilia” demonstrates the lengths to which parties may go to retain personal items or hold them hostage. The question thus arises, How should a court divide and value what may be charitably called “personal mementos”?

The cases have addressed such various items as antique furniture, guns, paintings, sculpture, figurines, coins, stamps, model trains, baseball cards, and beer cans. Generally, the court should award the collection to the spouse to whom the collection has sentimental value. E.g., Starnes v. Starnes, 680 So. 2d 572 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996) (error to award wife husband’s school books, memorabilia, and childhood toys); In re Marriage of Harding, 189 Ill. App. 3d 663, 545 N.E.2d 459 (1989) (stamp collection); Long v. Long, 129 Md. App. 554, 743 A.2d 281 (2000) (model train collection); In re Marriage of Keedy, 813 P.2d 442 (Mont. 1991) (baseball card collection); Summer v. Summer, 206 A.D.2d 930, 615 N.Y.S.2d 192 (1994) (husband’s personal photographs are marital property, but they should be awarded to him as part of his share of the marital estate); Dixon v. Dixon, 919 P.2d 28 (Okla. Ct. App. 1996); Albrecht v. Albrecht, 609 N.W.2d 765 (S.D. 2000) (family farm house to husband); Van Boxtel v. Van Boxtel, No. 99-0341 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002) (collection of “Precious Moments” figurines).

While division does not pose much of a problem, valuation, on the other hand, can be problematic. It may be hard to see that a collection of penguin figurines would have significant value, but in Epstein v. Epstein, 289 A.D.2d 78, 734 N.Y.S.2d 144 (2001), such a collection was valued at $50,000. See also Long v. Long, 129 Md. App. 554, 743 A.2d 281 (2000) (model train collection valued at $400,000); Holden v. Holden, 31 Va. App. 24, 520 S.E.2d 842 (1999) (comic book collection valued at $17,000). Thus, counsel should attempt to value items of sentimental value on eBay or other internet auction sites.

Current Cases Current Periodicals
what :: how :: who :: others
links :: contact :: reader
 
shadow
Base