Bauer v. Bauer
130 Conn. App. 185
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Dissolution judgment entered October 12, 2005, with alimony and asset orders.
- Pltf alleged in 2008 that the judgment required dividing the defendant's pension via QDRO.
- Pltf filed a 2009 motion for clarification after learning defendant disputed a pension division.
- Trial court issued June 10, 2009 memorandum of decision interpreting an implied agreement and ordered equal pension division via QDRO.
- Defendant filed motion for reargument; court denied; this appeal followed.
- Court reverses, holding the 2009 order improperly modified, not clarified, the 2005 judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2009 clarification modified the judgment | Bauer contends ambiguity required clarification of pension split | Bauer asserts no ambiguity; clarification would modify | Clarification was a modification, not clarification |
| Whether the judgment contained an agreement to split pension assets | Findings show an agreement to split pension assets | No explicit order distributing pension assets | No explicit order; no ambiguity to clarify |
| Whether a motion for clarification was proper to address postjudgment pension distribution | Motion seeks enforcement of implied agreement | Motion seeks substantive modification | Improper use of clarification to modify the judgment |
| Whether the court had authority to modify after four months | Modification not authorized; outside proper postjudgment procedure | ||
| Disposition on appeal | Reverse judgment; remand to deny motion for clarification |
Key Cases Cited
- Mickey v. Mickey, 292 Conn. 597 (2009) (clarification vs modification distinction; continuing jurisdiction)
- State v. Denya, 294 Conn. 516 (2010) (interpretation of judgments; enduring applicability)
- In re Haley B., 262 Conn. 406 (2003) (clarification as a vehicle; final judgments")
- Miller v. Miller, 16 Conn.App. 412 (1988) (appellate review of postjudgment orders)