Mickey v. Mickey

974 A.2d 641 (2009)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The marriage of the parties was dissolved on September 21, 2001. H had been employed by the state of Connecticut as a correction officer for approximately fourteen years. H was enrolled in tier II of the state employees’ retirement system. H was potentially eligible for hazardous duty retirement, was eligible for normal retirement benefits and disability retirement benefits in the event that he became disabled during the course of his employment. The trial court, Dyer, J., ordered that W shall be entitled to, and H's ... pension plan shall pay to her, 40 percent of H's monthly retirement benefit payment. It was the court's intention that W receive 40 percent of H's monthly retirement benefit payment under the contributory hazardous duty retirement plan should he qualify for [the] same, or 40 percent of H's monthly retirement benefit payment under the noncontributory tier II plan should he fail to qualify for a hazardous duty pension.' The trial court did not mention any potential disability benefits that H may have subsequently become entitled to under the plan. After dissolution, H suffered an injury in the course of his employment, which rendered him disabled and eventually forced him to retire. H subsequently filed a motion for clarification requesting that the trial court clarify that (1) it did not intend to distribute H's disability benefits as part of its original financial orders, and (2) regardless of its intent, the trial court did not have the statutory authority to distribute those benefits because they were acquired after dissolution. The court held that it had the authority to distribute those retirement benefits attributable to the H's disability and that H, therefore, was not entitled to any relief. This appeal followed.