Cunningham v. Cunningham
140 Conn. App. 676
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Mary V. Cunningham appeals after dissolution judgment entered March 9, 2011, with extensive financial orders including alimony of $20,000/month until Jan 31, 2018 and a nonqualified retirement plan division
- Nonqualified plan ordered to be divided 60/40 to defendant/plaintiff with a 60% joint and survivor annuity preference and a coverture fraction formula
- Coverture fraction: numerator months married; denominator months employed by Deloitte; applies to determine marital portion
- Court retained jurisdiction to handle DR order preparation and any issues arising with the plan’s division
- Plaintiff challenges the plan’s division as unworkable and asserts reserved jurisdiction method rejected in Bender; defendant argues the division is workable and properly implemented
- Alimony award of $20,000/month is time-limited to 2018; court considered statutory criteria under §46b-82 but plaintiff asserts misalignment with pension timing
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the nonqualified plan division was proper under the deferment methods | Cunningham argues the division is unworkable and relies on reserved jurisdiction rejected in Bender | Cunningham argues division is workable and uses coverture fraction consistent with Bender | No abuse; present division method properly applied and jurisdiction retained |
| Whether the alimony award was proper given pension timing | Alimony termination creates a gap before pension starts, inconsistent with record | Court considered statutory factors and tied alimony to income and asset division; gap acceptable | No abuse; award reasonable under statutory criteria; possible gap does not show error |
Key Cases Cited
- Bender v. Bender, 258 Conn. 733 (Conn. 2001) (rejected reserved jurisdiction method of pension division; supports present division approach)
- Rozsa v. Rozsa, 117 Conn. App. 1 (Conn. App. 2009) (guides consideration of alimony factors and broad discretion in family matters)
- Kaczynski v. Kaczynski, 124 Conn. App. 204 (Conn. App. 2010) (discusses statutory criteria for alimony and variance in weighting factors)
- Ranfone v. Ranfone, 103 Conn. App. 243 (Conn. App. 2007) (affirms standard of review for appellate reversal in domestic relations)