180 Conn. App. 64
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Parties married in 2003; one minor child born in 2008. Plaintiff (age 61) is a retired U.S. Navy commander who elected to receive his military pension in 2014 and began receiving payments; defendant (age 42) is a dental hygienist earning regular wages.
- Plaintiff received a $20,000 lump sum and thereafter received weekly pension payments; the trial court noted the pension only when calculating plaintiff’s gross/net weekly income.
- Trial court dissolved the marriage, adopted the parties’ parenting plan, awarded various assets (including 40% of defendant’s 401(k) to plaintiff via QDRO) and ordered limited alimony to the plaintiff, but did not value or distribute plaintiff’s military pension or treat it as marital property.
- Defendant moved for reconsideration arguing the pension was property subject to equitable distribution; the trial court denied the motion and the defendant appealed.
- The appellate court held the trial court erred by classifying the pension only as income rather than as property under § 46b-81 and reversed the trial court’s financial orders, remanding for a new trial on all financial issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a vested military pension in pay status may be treated as a source of income rather than as property subject to equitable distribution | Pension is in pay status so it may be treated as income for support purposes | Vested pension is property under § 46b-81 and must be classified, valued and distributed or offset | Pension in pay status remains property; trial court erred by treating it only as income and failing to value or distribute it |
| Whether the trial court’s misclassification was severable from other financial orders | Implicitly: classification harmless/waived if not pleaded | Misclassification affects the entire financial mosaic and requires remand | Misclassification was not severable; financial orders reversed and case remanded for new trial on financial issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Krafick v. Krafick, [citation="234 Conn. 783"] (1995) (vested pension benefits are property under § 46b-81 and must be classified, valued and distributable rather than treated merely as income)
- Kent v. DiPaola, [citation="178 Conn. App. 424"] (2017) (pensions in pay status must be treated as property — valued and either distributed or balanced against other financial orders)
- Grant v. Grant, [citation="171 Conn. App. 851"] (2017) (financial orders are interrelated; errors in classification can require remand for all financial issues)