181 Conn. App. 822
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Parties divorced; dissolution judgment required division of defendant Edward Thomasi Sr.’s Connecticut defined benefit pension. Paragraph 9B required husband to "immediately transfer one-half of the marital portion" of his pension by a domestic relations order drafted by Attorney Elizabeth McMahon.
- "Marital portion" was not defined in the agreement; parties agreed it meant the benefit accrued during the marriage and disputed the calculation method (coverture fraction vs. subtraction/current-value difference method).
- Attorney McMahon initially drafted a domestic relations order using the coverture fraction, later prepared a version using the subtraction method and testified she normally uses coverture but acknowledged multiple legitimate methods exist.
- Trial court found the term unambiguous and enforced the coverture-based draft, and denied defendant’s motion to modify alimony after his employment ended, finding his job loss was his fault; it also ordered retroactive pension payments to the plaintiff from the date of dissolution without tax adjustment.
- Appellate court reversed the pension division ruling (latent ambiguity) and reversed the denial of the alimony modification (trial court’s finding of fault unsupported), but affirmed that the plaintiff was entitled to pension payments as of the dissolution date while remanding to calculate amounts and tax adjustments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "marital portion" unambiguously requires the coverture fraction | Thompson: term is ambiguous; subtraction method was intended; paragraph doesn't specify method | Thomasi: term is unambiguous because parties chose McMahon and she uses coverture | Court: latent ambiguity exists—term can be computed by multiple accepted methods; remand to determine parties' intent and proper calculation |
| Whether defendant’s loss of employment justified alimony modification | Thomasi: job loss was a substantial, excusable change warranting reduction | Thompson: job loss was defendant’s fault; reduction improper | Court: trial court’s finding that defendant caused his job loss was clearly erroneous; remand for further proceedings on modification |
| Whether plaintiff is entitled to retroactive pension payments from dissolution date before domestic relations order was entered | Thompson: agreement "immediately transfer" entitles her to payments from date of dissolution | Thomasi: payments only effective once domestic relations order (QDRO) is in place | Court: plaintiff’s property interest vested at dissolution; entitled to retroactive payments; remand to calculate amounts and adjust for taxes paid by defendant |
| Whether trial court properly considered settlement proceeds and pension income in modification analysis | Thomasi: settlement proceeds are income and pension should be excluded | Thompson: agreement disclaims claim to personal injury proceeds; pension is relevant to present financial circumstances | Court: dismissal—trial court properly disregarded personal injury proceeds per agreement; pension may be considered but must exclude plaintiff’s allocated marital portion on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Remillard v. Remillard, 297 Conn. 345 (2010) (principles for interpreting separation agreements as contracts)
- Watkins v. Watkins, 152 Conn. App. 99 (2014) (contract language given ordinary meaning; ambiguity rules)
- Flaherty v. Flaherty, 120 Conn. App. 266 (2010) (definition of ambiguous words in contracts)
- Heyman Associates No. 1 v. Ins. Co. of Pennsylvania, 231 Conn. 756 (1995) (latent ambiguity explained)
- Buell Industries, Inc. v. Greater New York Mutual Ins. Co., 259 Conn. 527 (2002) (use of extrinsic evidence to clarify contract terms and focus on parties’ intent)
- Krafick v. Krafick, 234 Conn. 783 (1995) (treatment of pension benefits in alimony/support analysis)
- Cifaldi v. Cifaldi, 118 Conn. App. 325 (2009) (QDRO/domestic order is administrative tool; property interest vests independent of paperwork)
- Ranfone v. Ranfone, 119 Conn. App. 341 (2009) (application of latent ambiguity to pension orders)
- Tittle v. Skipp-Tittle, 161 Conn. App. 542 (2015) (fault-based bars to modification when loss of income is self-caused)
- Spencer v. Spencer, 177 Conn. App. 504 (2017) (standard of review and burden for alimony modification)