Richman v. Wallman
161 A.3d 666
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Terri L. Richman and Scott A. Wallman divorced by judgment on August 20, 2014; their separation agreement (incorporated into the judgment) required QDROs to allocate portions of Wallman’s 401(k) and IBM pension to Richman.
- Agreement stated the court could enter alternative orders to effectuate intent and specified Attorney Elizabeth McMahon would prepare the QDROs (the agreement used the plural “QDROs”).
- Financial planner Bill Donaldson was retained to compute the 401(k) equalization plan; his initial valuation mistakenly included the present value of the IBM pension, which he later corrected in an amended evaluation.
- Richman refused to sign Donaldson’s amended evaluation; Wallman moved to compel and for contempt so QDROs could be prepared.
- Trial court ordered Richman to agree to Donaldson’s amended evaluation and to pay a share of fees so McMahon could prepare the QDROs; the court did not rule on the contempt motion.
- Richman appealed, challenging (1) that the court held her in contempt and (2) that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify the property division by ordering agreement to two QDROs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff was properly held in contempt for refusing to agree to Donaldson’s amended valuation | Richman argued she did not willfully refuse and that the amended valuation was incorrect and forced upon her | Wallman argued the amended valuation complied with the separation agreement and Richman’s assent was required to prepare QDROs | Court did not resolve a contempt finding; trial court never ruled on the contempt motion, so Richman is not aggrieved on that basis (claim rejected) |
| Whether the court exceeded its subject-matter jurisdiction by ordering Richman to agree to two QDROs (alleged modification of property division) | Richman argued the agreement contemplated only one QDRO and that ordering two altered the property assignment beyond the court’s postjudgment authority | Wallman argued the agreement contemplated multiple QDROs, the pension administrator required a separate QDRO, and the court was effectuating — not modifying — its original judgment | Court held it acted to effectuate the judgment (not to modify the property division) and had jurisdiction to order agreement to the two QDROs; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rubin v. Rubin, 204 Conn. 224 (1987) (court has no inherent power to transfer property at dissolution; power derives from statute)
- Schorsch v. Schorsch, 53 Conn. App. 378 (1999) (property assignment in divorce judgment is not subject to continuing jurisdiction)
- O’Halpin v. O’Halpin, 144 Conn. App. 671 (2013) (distinguishes orders that effectuate a judgment from those that modify it)
- Mickey v. Mickey, 292 Conn. 597 (2009) (courts retain inherent authority to fashion remedies to vindicate prior judgments)