Stebbins v. Stebbins, FA980067954S.

Page 1

Bonnilea M. Stebbins v. Danny R. Stebbins.

FA980067954S.

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Tolland, at Rockville.

Decided October 1, 2003.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Klaczak, J.

The plaintiff has cited the defendant for contempt alleging non-payment of alimony, failure to maintain life insurance naming her as beneficiary, and that the defendant entered her home without consent and removed items of personal property therefrom without permission. This is a post-judgment proceeding, following the decree of dissolution of marriage on April 24, 2000, as clarified on July 6, 2000.

The relevant portions of the judgment were:

1. The defendant shall pay alimony in the amount of $ 700 per week through January 2014, subject however to the following conditions . . . If the wife begins to receive the benefits set out herein under [Retirement Accounts] as a contingent annuitant, or on February 1, 2014, whichever occurs sooner, the alimony shall be reduced to $ 1.00 per year. It is the intent of these orders that the following events would be a significant change in circumstances which would allow consideration of a modification of alimony. (These are not intended to preclude other circumstances which also significantly changes.)

2. The wife shall receive fifty percent (50%) of the husband's interest in his State of Connecticut Defined Benefit Pension Plan, as valued on the date of dissolution, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).

The Court orders the husband to elect the fifty percent (50%) contingent annuitant option, naming the plaintiff wife as the sole optionee/beneficiary when he elects to receive said benefits, to protect the wife's interests in the event of his death. In connection with these orders, it is noted that a personnel officer from the Department of Public Safety, Marguarite Breckel, testified that if the husband remarries, and has been remarried for at least one year prior to the commencement of his retirement benefits, the new spouse may have to give written consent if she is not herself named as a contingent annuitant. Although Ms. Breckel was not certain of that requirement, plaintiff's exhibit 9 indicates that to be so, thus it appears that the plaintiff's interest in the pension fund can be defeated if the defendant remarries at least one year prior to his retirement and fails to obtain his new spouse's waiver as required by the plan.

3. It is the intention of the Court that alimony be modifiable both as to term and amount. Also . . . it is the Court's intention that either party may move to modify alimony . . . or at any other time due to changing circumstances.

Discussion

On January 31, 2003 the defendant applied for retirement from the Connecticut Department of Public Safety. He did not elect to name his wife as a contingent annuitant. He had remarried in July 2001 and his new wife would not waive her right to be a contingent annuitant beneficiary (which the trial testimony indicated could happen).

After March 2003, he stopped paying alimony because the plaintiff was then receiving 50% of his retirement pension as ordered by the Court in the decree. Her share of his retirement income was approximately $ 500 per week. The defendant's labor agreement with the state provided that the defendant, within one year of his retirement could elect to "unretire" and return to...