Kent v. DiPaola
175 A.3d 601
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Parties married in 1998, lived in defendant Florence DiPaola’s Stamford home (purchased by her in 1988); they have a minor child.
- Parties largely kept separate finances; defendant had substantially greater premarital assets and a long corporate career; defendant was retired with several pensions producing ~$50,000/yr.
- Plaintiff Richard Kent was older, changed careers (realtor), had sharply reduced income in later years and was depleting retirement accounts; court found plaintiff less credible and less contributory to defendant’s career.
- Trial court found total current assets (excluding pensions) $4,619,655 and divided them 33% to plaintiff / 67% to defendant, with a $300,000 distribution from defendant to plaintiff.
- Court excluded defendant’s pensions from the percentage division (treating them as an income stream substantially accrued prior to marriage), awarded pension income to defendant, and deviated downward from child support guidelines (ordering no child support).
- Court denied plaintiff’s motions on pensions, home interest, and overall estate division; plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by excluding defendant’s pensions from marital property division | Kent: court should have included pensions in the asset division and used actuary’s present-value figures | DiPaola: court properly treated pensions as largely premarital, used them as an income stream and offset other orders (no child support) | Court: No error — pensions were accounted for as income and offset by child support deviation; exclusion from percentage division was permissible |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by rejecting plaintiff’s pension actuary valuation | Kent: actuary provided present value and coverture fraction; court improperly declined to use it | DiPaola: court heard actuary, found flaws (misallocated GE years, mortality assumptions) and permissibly used present-division approach | Court: No abuse — valuation method is discretionary; court reasonably used a modified present-division method and need not adopt actuary’s numbers |
| Whether plaintiff entitled to 50% of marital home instead of 33% | Kent: substantial mortgage payments and contributions over 24 years justify equal share | DiPaola: home purchased pre-marriage with 20% down; major improvements and greatest contributions were hers; plaintiff declined earlier equity offer | Court: No abuse — trial court considered factors (premarital purchase, contributions, improvements) and reasonably awarded 33% to plaintiff |
| Whether overall 33% award to plaintiff was improper given his age, health, earning capacity | Kent: court failed to adequately account for his age, health, earning capacity | DiPaola: court considered statutory §46b-81 factors and found defendant had greater contributions and assets | Court: No abuse — court weighed statutory factors, record does not support reallocation; plaintiff’s claim was effectively a request for reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Krafick v. Krafick, 234 Conn. 783 (Conn. 1995) (trial court has discretion to choose valuation method for pensions; present value and present-division methods described)
- Bender v. Bender, 258 Conn. 733 (Conn. 2001) (trial court may select valuation method for pension benefits and need not rely on actuarial testimony for present-division approach)
- Cunningham v. Cunningham, 140 Conn. App. 676 (Conn. App. 2013) (framework for classification, valuation, and distribution of marital resources)
- Ranfone v. Ranfone, 103 Conn. App. 243 (Conn. App. 2007) (emphasizes equity and trial court’s broad discretion in pension valuation and distribution)
- Brady-Kinsella v. Kinsella, 154 Conn. App. 413 (Conn. App. 2014) (upholding award of pension income to one spouse offset by lump-sum/other obligations)
- Thompson v. Thompson, 183 Conn. 96 (Conn. 1981) (courts may consider unaccrued pension benefits as future income in property/alimony determinations)
- Cifaldi v. Cifaldi, 118 Conn. App. 325 (Conn. App. 2009) (pension benefits constitute property under §46b-81)