AMELIA WOOD v. DAVID WOOD
(AC 38090)
Connecticut Appellate Court
Argued December 5, 2016—officially released February 14, 2017
Lavine, Alvord and Pellegrino, Js.
(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Ficeto, J.)
The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘officially released’’ date.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
******************************************************
William J. Forbes, with whom was Cara C. Pavalock, for the appellee (defendant).
ALVORD, J. The plaintiff, Amelia Wood, appeals from the financial orders relating to the judgment of the trial court dissolving her marriage to the defendant, David Wood. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court abused its discretion by (1) awarding the parties’ joint securities account, in its entirety, to the defendant, (2) failing to treat the defendant’s unexercised stock options as available income when awarding alimony or, alternatively, as marital property when distributing property, and (3) failing to distribute a portion of the defendant’s pension annuity retirement income to her. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The court found the following facts. At the time of the dissolution of their fourteen year marriage, the defendant was sixty-six years old and retired and the plaintiff was fifty-two years old and in good health. The parties met through a chat room in 1999 while the defendant was living in Singapore and the plaintiff in Malaysia. At that time, the plaintiff was married but estranged from her spouse. The plaintiff testified that while in Malaysia she co-owned a business with her then husband, which she characterized as a successful hotel and resort marketing business. The plaintiff testified that when she and the defendant decided to marry, the defendant urged her to get a ‘‘ ‘quick’ ’’ divorce so that they could leave Malaysia together and settle in the United States. She claims that they both understood that a quick divorce would mean that she would make no claim to the marital estate she shared with her then husband, but she had agreed to a quick divorce because the defendant assured her that he would always provide for her. As a result, the plaintiff requested that the court award her additional assets representing her allegedly forgone portion of the prior marital estate.
The parties were married in 2001 in Bloomfield. During the marriage, the plaintiff filed for divorce on two prior occasions but withdrew each prior action. The parties each blame the other for the difficulties encountered in their relationship. There are no children of the marriage, although both parties have adult children from previous relationships. The defendant has always financially supported his children from his two prior marriages. The plaintiff has not worked outside the home since she married the defendant. She alleged that she managed a crew of ten employees at the business she co-owned in Malaysia prior to her marriage to the defendant. After completing a paralegal course in 2005, she obtained the related certificate, but she never sought employment in that or any other field during her marriage to the defendant. During the pendency of this dissolution action, the plaintiff removed a total of $120,000 from the parties’ bank accounts, funds for which she has provided no accounting.1 The court found that the plaintiff is able to seek and obtain gainful
The defendant retired from Otis Elevator after a thirty-five year career at the end of 2012. Thus, the parties were married during the last eleven years of his employment. He receives $412 in social security benefits and $1900 in pension annuity retirement income for a total gross weekly retirement income amount of $2166.2 His weekly net income is $1803. He has a PMP IRA valued at $312,541 and a Dividend G IRA valued at $466,253. He has $970,819 in unexercised stock options and the parties’ joint UBS Managed Equity account valued at $965,645. On his financial affidavit, the defendant also listed unvested shares of UTC stock, which the court valued at $29,800, and bank accounts worth $23,000. Prior to the marriage, the defendant had $1.1 million in assets. He purchased the parties’ marital home at 19 Stratford Park in Bloomfield, liquidating $110,000 of those premarital assets for the deposit. The house has a fair market value of $275,000 and a mortgage of approximately $43,000.
The court made the following relevant financial awards. The plaintiff is to receive alimony in the amount of $540 per week until her sixty-fifth birthday, which was a nonmodifiable period. The plaintiff retained all benefit and interest in her premarital bank accounts and retirement assets. She retained her jewelry and custody of the dogs, and the defendant was ordered to transfer title, free and clear, to his 2013 Hyundai Santa Fe to her. The plaintiff was further permitted to retain all sums of money she previously removed from joint bank accounts, including the unaccounted for $120,000. The defendant was awarded all interest in the unexercised stock options, the UBS Managed Equity account, and the unvested UTC stock. He also retained his photography equipment and tools, the 2011 Hyundai Santa Fe, and the 2003 Toyota Highlander. The defendant’s IRA assets, valued at $778,794, were divided 65 percent to the plaintiff and 35 percent to the defendant. The court also ordered that the plaintiff remain the named survivor beneficiary of the defendant’s pension annuity retirement income. The parties were ordered to list for sale the marital home immediately. The defendant is solely responsible for the mortgage, real estate taxes, and insurance until the home is sold, and the parties are to divide equally the net proceeds from the sale of the home.3 The parties were each awarded any residual assets held in their individual names. This appeal followed.
On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the court erred by not (1) awarding to her one half of the UBS Managed Equity account, as it was jointly held; (2) considering the unexercised stock options when determining the
We first set forth our standard of review. ‘‘It is within the province of the trial court to find facts and draw proper inferences from the evidence presented. . . . [W]here the factual basis of the court’s decision is challenged we must determine whether the facts set out in the memorandum of decision are supported by the evidence or whether, in light of the evidence and the pleadings in the whole record, these facts are clearly erroneous. . . . An appellate court will not disturb a trial court’s orders in domestic relations cases unless the court has abused its discretion or it is found that it could not reasonably conclude as it did, based on the facts presented. . . . In determining whether a trial court has abused its broad discretion in domestic relations matters, we allow every reasonable presumption in favor of the correctness of its action.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Kovalsick v. Kovalsick, 125 Conn. App. 265, 270–271, 7 A.3d 924 (2010).
‘‘The legal principles that guide our analysis are well established. In dissolution proceedings, the court must fashion its financial orders in accordance with the criteria set forth in
‘‘With respect to the present claim concerning alimony . . .
Finally, the plaintiff takes issue with the court’s orders distributing the property of this fourteen year marriage. She claims that the court improperly failed to award her a portion of the jointly held UBS Managed Equity account, the defendant’s vested, but unexercised, stock options, and the defendant’s pension annuity retirement income. Specifically, she argues that the court failed to understand that the UBS Managed Equity account and stock options were marital assets subject to distribution. She also argues that the court should have awarded her 40 percent of the defendant’s pension annuity retirement income because she and the defendant were married for fourteen of the thirty-five years he worked at Otis Elevator.5
The plaintiff’s argument overlooks the fact that ‘‘the trial courts are empowered to deal broadly with property and its equitable division incident to dissolution proceedings.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Jewett v. Jewett, 265 Conn. 669, 682, 830 A.2d 193 (2003).
We disagree with the plaintiff’s characterization of the court’s financial orders. A careful reading of the court’s memorandum of decision, in concert with a close review of the record, coupled with the facts confirmed at oral argument by both counsel, supports the court’s equitable division of the marital property. The record reveals that the court was aware that the fifty-two year old plaintiff was the named beneficiary of the defendant’s pension annuity retirement income because it ordered that the plaintiff remain the survivor beneficiary. Further, the court additionally awarded the plaintiff, among other things, 65 percent of the defendant’s IRAs, which equaled $778,794, her UBS IRA, valued at $25,100, her Employee Provident Fund, valued at $20,000, and one half of the sale proceeds of the marital home.6 Additionally, the court awarded the plaintiff her individual bank accounts and the 2013 Hyundai Santa Fe, and it did not require the plaintiff to return the $120,000 she withdrew from the parties’ marital funds during the pendency of this dissolution action.
After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the court properly applied the relevant statutory criteria and did not abuse its discretion in its division of the marital assets. See, e.g., Cunningham v. Cunningham, 140 Conn. App. 676, 688–89, 59 A.3d 874 (2013).
The judgment is affirmed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.