D. S. v. D. S.
Citations
- 351 Conn. 1
Syllabus
The plaintiff appealed, on the granting of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which had affirmed the trial court's judgment dissolv- ing his marriage to the defendant, who was a partner at a large law firm. The plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the Appellate Court had incorrectly concluded that the defendant's interest in a potential stream of retirement payments, which was to be paid pursuant to the relevant provisions of the firm's partnership agreement, was too speculative to constitute marital property subject to equitable distribution under the statute (§ 46b-81) govern- ing, inter alia, the assignment of property in marital dissolution cases. Held: A trial court's determination of whether an asset or interest constitutes marital property for purposes of § 46b-81 presents a mixed question of law and fact subject to de novo review, the trial court's underlying factual findings are reviewed for clear error, and the question of how such determi- nations as to any particular asset fit into the mosaic of the trial court's financial orders is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The Appellate Court correctly determined that the defendant's interest in the retirement payments did not constitute property subject to equitable distribution for purposes of § 46b-81. This case originally was argued before a panel of this court consisting of Chief Justice Robinson and Justices McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Ecker, Alexander and Dannehy. Thereafter, Chief Justice Robinson retired from this court and did not participate in the consideration of the case. The listing of justices reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of oral argument. 1 2 JANUARY, 2025 351 Conn. 1 D. S. v. D. S. The defendant did not have an enforceable right to receive the retirement payments insofar as the defendant's firm had a contractual right under the partnership agreement to unilaterally reduce or eliminate them at any time, even after the defendant started receiv
Judges: McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Alexander; Dannehy
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCites
26 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- U. S. Bank N. A. v. Village at Lakeridge, LLCSupreme Court· 2018-03-05· cited 327×
- Krafick v. KrafickSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1995-08-08· cited 162×
- Rubin v. RubinSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1987-06-30· cited 139×
- Bornemann v. BornemannSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1998-07-21· cited 111×
- Smith v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1999-06-15· cited 94×
- Laura McGahey Roberts White v. David Carlton WrightCourt of Appeals of Virginia· 2013-02-19· cited 93×
- Bender v. BenderSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2001-12-18· cited 93×
- Eslami v. EslamiSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1991-05-21· cited 73×
- Simmons v. SimmonsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1998-03-24· cited 72×
- Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C. v. BeckettSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2004-06-15· cited 62×
- Krause v. KrauseSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1978-03-07· cited 60×
- Mickey v. MickeySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-07-21· cited 56×
- Crews v. CrewsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-03-16· cited 55×
- Robinson v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1982-05-04· cited 52×
- Bortner v. Town of WoodbridgeSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1999-08-17· cited 51×
- Cruz v. MontanezSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-12-22· cited 44×
- Dombrowski v. Noyes-DombrowskiSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2005-03-29· cited 29×
- Debowsky v. DebowskyConnecticut Appellate Court· 1987-10-27· cited 24×
- Commissioner of Transportation v. LarobinaConnecticut Appellate Court· 2005-10-18· cited 18×
- Douglas v. DouglasAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 2001-03-08· cited 17×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.