Cunningham v. Cunningham, 204 Conn.App. 366

Background

2011 dissolution: court used the present division method to split the defendant’s nonqualified, nonfunded Deloitte pension, ordered 50% to each party (subject to a coverture fraction) and required the defendant to elect a 50% joint-and-survivor annuity; court retained jurisdiction to effectuate the pension division.
The judgment limited the plaintiff to benefits vested and accrued as of the memorandum of decision; benefits vesting after dissolution belong to the defendant.
Defendant retired in 2018; parties agreed exhibit A calculating the plaintiff’s marital share (annual pre-tax payment of $84,261 based on 2011 valuation) and began direct payments from defendant to plaintiff.
Defendant’s proposed domestic relations order (DRO) — adopted by the court in 2019 — (1) capped the plaintiff’s survivor benefit at $84,261 (plus COLAs) and directed any excess (post-dissolution accrual) to a third-party account, (2) stated the plaintiff would proportionally share the “cost” of the 50% joint survivor election (i.e., reduced current benefit), and (3) provided that both parties share equally in any future reductions implemented by Deloitte (nonfunded plan risk).
Plaintiff objected, arguing each of those three provisions impermissibly modified the 2011 property distribution rather than merely effectuating/clarifying it; the trial court entered the 2019 DRO and plaintiff appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Provision requiring plaintiff to direct excess survivor payments to third party (cap survivor benefit)	Eliminates plaintiff’s right to 100% of survivor annuity and improperly reduces her judgment-protected survivor benefit	DRO effectuates the 2011 judgment by limiting plaintiff to the value of the marital share as of dissolution; post-dissolution accruals belong to defendant and must be excluded from plaintiff’s entitlement	Court affirmed: provision effectuates (does not modify) the dissolution judgment and prevents an unintended windfall to plaintiff
2) Requirement that plaintiff share in the “cost” of electing the 50% joint survivor annuity	Imposes a new postjudgment obligation not contemplated by the dissolution judgment	‘‘Cost’’ is simply the actuarial reduction in defendant’s current benefit; statement only confirms shared effect of the election	Court affirmed: paragraph merely confirms the reduced current benefit (shared proportionally) and is not an impermissible modification
3) Formula requiring equal sharing of any future reductions by Deloitte	Issue is speculative/unripe; if plan is reduced defendant should bear reductions at least until defendant’s benefit equals baseline marital valuation	DRO clarifies how to allocate risk in a nonfunded plan; parties were always on notice reductions could affect their shares and court may clarify to protect its judgment	Court affirmed: language clarifies and effectuates the 2011 judgment; court’s interpretation of its own order was not manifestly unreasonable; ripeness/plain-error challenges rejected

Key Cases Cited

Bender v. Bender, 258 Conn. 733 (Conn. 2001) (describing present division method of deferred distribution for pensions)
Perry v. Perry, 156 Conn. App. 587 (Conn. App. 2015) (construction of a judgment is a question of law; intent governs interpretation)
Morton v. Syriac, 196 Conn. App. 183 (Conn. App. 2020) (distinguishing modification from orders effectuating an existing judgment)
O'Halpin v. O'Halpin, 144 Conn. App. 671 (Conn. App. 2013) (trial court may fashion equitable orders to protect integrity of its original judgment)
Lawrence v. Cords, 159 Conn. App. 194 (Conn. App. 2015) (substantial deference to a trial court’s clarification/interpretation of its own order)
Dicker v. Dicker, 189 Conn. App. 247 (Conn. App. 2019) (trial court has continuing jurisdiction to interpret and effectuate ambiguous postjudgment issues)
Thomasi v. Thomasi, 181 Conn. App. 822 (Conn. App. 2018) (pension benefits are property for distribution purposes)