Opinion
No. FA 000435334-S
July 7, 2003
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Contempt (#135) and a Motion for Order (#136), both postjudgment. The one issue before this court regards the pension and a QDRO.
The parties were married in 1977. Four children were born issue of this marriage. At this time none remain under the age of 18.
The marriage of the parties was dissolved on March 29, 2001 after trial (Alander, J.). An appeal was taken by the Defendant ( Ricciuti v. Ricciuti, 74 Conn. App. 120 (2002)) wherein the trial court was affirmed. Certification to the Supreme Court was denied ( Ricciuti v. Ricciuti, 262 Conn. 946 (2003)).
The issue before the court pertains to the pension order in paragraph 11 of the dissolution, which reads:
11. The plaintiff is awarded twenty-five percent of the defendant's monthly pension. The plaintiff shall be designated as an alternate payee under the defendant's pension plan with the right to receive twenty-five percent of the monthly benefits payable under the plan. It is intended that the distributions to the plaintiff under the pension plan shall be taxable income to her and not taxable income to the defendant. The plaintiff shall draft a Domestic Relation Order to effectuate this award. The draft shall be submitted to the defendant for his review and to the court for its approval. The court shall retain jurisdiction in order to enforce this provision.
At the time of the dissolution the Defendant was in pay status under the pension. He was receiving a monthly pension payment.
The Plaintiff's attorney drafted a QDRO which the Defendant refused to sign. The Plaintiff claims that she is entitled to be named as the surviving beneficiary. She claims that the court has continuing jurisdiction over the pension, that the equities of the case require the order and that the order is necessary to preserve the integrity of the original order. The Defendant claims the order was only as to the monthly payment with no rights of survivorship.
Connecticut General Statutes Section 46b-81 (a) provides: "At the time of entering a decree annulling or dissolving a marriage or for legal separation pursuant to a complaint under section 46b-45, the Superior Court may assign to either the husband or wife all or any part of the estate of the other. The court may pass title to real property to either party or to a third person or may order the sale of such real property, without any act by either the husband or the wife, when in the judgment of the court it is the proper mode to carry the decree into effect."
Pensions are treated as property in financial orders in a dissolution, see Bender v. Bender, 258 Conn. 733 (2001), and Krafick v. Krafick, 234 Conn. 783 (1995), and are therefore non-modifiable. See Rosato v. Rosato, 77 Conn. App. 9 (2003), and Bunche v. Bunche, 180 Conn. 285 (1980).
The fact that the dissolution stated that the court retained jurisdiction has to do with effectuating the orders entered rather than affecting them. The retention of jurisdiction in this case had to do with ensuring that the QDRO was signed in accordance with the orders of the court.
The language of the order is clear and unambiguous. It clearly gives to the plaintiff a percentage of the monthly pension. It does not address the survivorship benefits, therefore to do so at this time is impermissible under the law.
Therefore, Plaintiff's attorney is ordered to prepare a QDRO consistent with this decision and the Defendant is ordered to sign same.
FRANKEL, JUDGE