Wood v. Wood
155 A.3d 816
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Marriage dissolved after 14 years; no children together. Plaintiff (age 52) had not worked outside the home during the marriage but had prior business experience; defendant (age 66) retired from Otis after 35 years.
- Defendant’s assets included large IRAs, a jointly held UBS Managed Equity account (~$965,645), $970,819 in unexercised stock options, unvested UTC stock, and pension annuity retirement income; plaintiff had modest retirement and bank accounts.
- During the case plaintiff withdrew about $120,000 from joint accounts and kept those funds; court found plaintiff able to obtain employment.
- Trial court awarded plaintiff: $540/week alimony until age 65 (nonmodifiable), 65% of defendant’s IRAs, her premarital accounts, jewelry, one vehicle, survivorship beneficiary status on defendant’s pension annuity, and other items; defendant received the UBS Managed Equity account, unexercised stock options, unvested UTC stock, and other assets.
- Marital home to be sold with net proceeds split equally; defendant responsible for carrying costs until sale. Plaintiff appealed financial orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Distribution of jointly held UBS Managed Equity account | Wood: she should receive half because it was jointly held and marital property | Wood: trial court equitably apportioned assets and properly awarded the account to defendant as part of overall division | Court: affirmed — trial court acted within broad discretion in equitable division and its overall award was supported by record |
| Treatment of defendant’s unexercised stock options | Wood: options should have been treated as income for alimony or as marital property for distribution | Wood: court chose to treat options as property in the distribution (not income) | Court: affirmed — court permissibly treated options as part of property distribution (stock options cannot be both income and property) |
| Allocation of pension annuity retirement income | Wood: she should receive a portion (e.g., 40%) of defendant’s pension because marriage spanned many of his employment years | Wood: trial court retained pension payments to defendant but preserved plaintiff’s survivorship beneficiary status and compensated via other asset awards | Court: affirmed — trial court’s choice to leave current pension payments with defendant while keeping plaintiff as survivor beneficiary and awarding other assets was within discretion |
| Sufficiency of alimony award | Wood: alimony should reflect defendant’s full collectible income including stock option value | Wood: court considered statutory factors and excluded stock options from income because they were treated as property | Court: affirmed — alimony amount and duration were reasonable under statutory factors and discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- McKeon v. Lennon, 321 Conn. 323 (Conn. 2016) (stock options may be treated as income for alimony or as marital property, but not both)
- Bornemann v. Bornemann, 245 Conn. 508 (Conn. 1998) (analysis for when stock options are marital property based on whether they compensate past services)
- Jewett v. Jewett, 265 Conn. 669 (Conn. 2003) (trial courts have broad power to equitably divide property in dissolution)
- Krafick v. Krafick, 234 Conn. 783 (Conn. 1995) (treatment of stock and compensation in dissolution analysis)
- Kiniry v. Kiniry, 71 Conn. App. 614 (Conn. App. 2002) (standard for finding contribution to acquisition and appreciation of marital assets)