192 Conn.App. 101
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Marriage of Heather Wilson (plaintiff) and Michael Di Iulio (defendant); dissolution after long-term marriage with two minor children. Plaintiff is a long‑term assistant attorney general with substantial state retirement benefits; defendant retired earlier and receives a smaller pension and Social Security.
- Marital residence (New Hartford) occupied by defendant; mortgage approx. $162,000; fair market value $350,000 with ~$188,000 equity. Plaintiff purchased and resides in a separate premarital/inherited home with substantial equity.
- Trial court ordered plaintiff to pay off the New Hartford mortgage within six months and to transfer $126,000 from her 457 plan to defendant; each party kept their respective nonmarital and personal assets.
- Court designated defendant as alternate payee of a portion of the plaintiff’s state pension via a domestic relations order, but recognized a future remarriage could affect survivor designation under the pension plan.
- Court awarded nominal alimony of $1 per year to defendant, expressly "modifiable only to enforce the rights called for in this provision," and otherwise denied periodic alimony to both parties. Defendant appealed, arguing insufficient alimony and that the court improperly made a property award enforceable through modifiable alimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by awarding only nominal alimony despite income disparity | Plaintiff argued property transfers (mortgage payoff and $126,000 transfer) effectively equalized division and served in lieu of periodic alimony | Defendant argued his weekly expenses exceed income and he is entitled to more than nominal alimony given retirement and age | Court upheld denial of periodic alimony beyond $1/year: property transfers created an effectively equal division; court reasonably exercised discretion after considering statutory factors |
| Whether court improperly made a property award enforceable via modifiable alimony | Plaintiff argued the $1 award was security for the pension/designation issues and did not retain jurisdiction to modify property settlement | Defendant argued the $1 alimony functionally conflated nonmodifiable property division with modifiable alimony, impermissibly allowing future modification of a property award | Court held $1 nominal alimony was a permissible security mechanism to protect defendant given pension plan restrictions; court did not retain power to modify the property division itself and did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Utz v. Utz, 112 Conn. App. 631 (2009) (upholding nominal $1 alimony as security related to property obligations)
- Horey v. Horey, 172 Conn. App. 735 (2017) (standard of review for financial awards in dissolution matters: abuse of discretion)
- Mensah v. Mensah, 167 Conn. App. 219 (2016) (trial court best positioned to assess credibility, demeanor, and weigh statutory alimony factors)
- Emerick v. Emerick, 170 Conn. App. 368 (2017) (statutory factors to be considered under alimony statutes; no absolute right to alimony)