190 Conn. App. 606
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Parties divorced in 2016 and incorporated a separation agreement into the dissolution judgment. Article 11 required the husband to transfer 50% of the marital portion of his City of Hartford pension to the wife "minus the amount of the wife’s Social Security Benefit," via QDRO.
- Attorney Winnick drafted a proposed QDRO that immediately subtracted the wife’s estimated full-retirement Social Security ($1,479/month) from her assigned monthly pension, producing a small current monthly payment to the wife.
- The wife refused to sign the QDRO and moved to open the judgment (claiming mutual and unilateral mistake and inequity), arguing the parties intended to equalize benefits only when she actually began receiving Social Security decades later.
- At a hearing the trial court granted the husband’s motion in limine to exclude parol evidence, found Article 11 unambiguous, denied the motion to open, granted the husband’s motion to compel the wife to sign the QDRO, and ordered compliance.
- On appeal the appellate court held the retirement provision was ambiguous as to how the wife’s Social Security benefit should be applied and remanded for a new hearing to consider extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly enforced QDRO by summarily compelling defendant to sign (i.e., whether provision was clear) | Provision is clear and unambiguous; QDRO implements its plain terms so court may summarily enforce it | Provision is ambiguous as drafted; enforcement requires interpretation and extrinsic evidence to determine parties’ intent | Provision is ambiguous; summary enforcement was improper — remand for new hearing to consider extrinsic evidence |
| Whether the court properly excluded parol/extrinsic evidence (motion in limine) | Separation agreement is fully integrated; parol evidence is barred to vary written terms | Extrinsic evidence is admissible to resolve ambiguities, show mistake or explain intent; exclusion prevented defendant from supporting her motion to open | Exclusion was erroneous because it rested on an incorrect legal finding (the provision is ambiguous); remand for consideration of extrinsic evidence |
| Proper approach to calculating "minus the amount of the wife’s Social Security Benefit" | Subtract estimated full-retirement monthly benefit immediately (as QDRO did) | Subtract wife’s actual Social Security when she elects/receives it, or otherwise apply a present-value conversion — language is susceptible to multiple reasonable readings | Multiple reasonable interpretations exist (immediate subtraction, future-offset upon receipt, or present-value conversion); ambiguity requires factfinding on intent |
| Whether appellate review is barred by induced/invited error or procedural defaults | Defendant failed to preserve or object sufficiently; review should be declined | Defendant did object at hearing and sought articulation; court considered ambiguity so issue is reviewable | Claim is reviewable; circumstances (objections, articulation) permit appellate review of ambiguous-contract ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Audubon Parking Assocs. Ltd. P’ship v. Barclay & Stubbs, Inc., 225 Conn. 804 (1993) (court may summarily enforce a clear, unambiguous settlement agreement)
- Gabriel v. Gabriel, 324 Conn. 324 (2016) (principles for contract construction and when extrinsic evidence is admissible for ambiguities)
- Rozbicki v. Gisselbrecht, 152 Conn. App. 840 (2014) (trial court may summarily order compliance with a clear judgment or interpret an ambiguous judgment)
- Parisi v. Parisi, 315 Conn. 370 (2015) (ambiguity in separation agreements must be resolved by determining parties’ intent after considering extrinsic evidence)
- Hirschfeld v. Machinist, 181 Conn. App. 309 (2018) (remand required where ambiguity exists so trial court can consider extrinsic evidence and make factual findings)