DocketNumber: No. 28 37 27
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 13390
Judges: HULL, STATE TRIAL REFEREE.
Filed Date: 12/1/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
Based on the testimony and arguments presented on November 17, 1995, the court reaffirms and republishes its August 17, 1995 decision, with the modification recited, infra, and finds that it maintains the ability, post judgment, to order the parties to enter into a QDRO. Therefore, the parties are ordered to enter into a forthwith, submit it to the plan administrator and, thereafter, file it with the court for execution.
In its August 17, 1995 decision, the court, after determining that the separation agreement was ambiguous, applied contractual construction principles to the document to find that Ms. Murphy CT Page 13391 was entitled to the status of a full beneficiary under Mr. Murphy's pension. Subsequent to the court's decision, the parties suggested that Ms. Murphy is entitled to only a 50 percent joint and survivor annuity under
Under ERISA, a QDRO "`creates or recognizes the existence of
an alternate payee's right to . . . receive all or a portion of the benefits payable'" under a plan. (Emphasis added.) Carland v.Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.,
To qualify as a QDRO under the statute, "a court order must include: (1) the name of the participant and the name and mailing address of an alternate payee covered by the order, (2) the amount or percentage of benefits payable to an alternate payee or a manner of determining the amount or percentage, (3) the number of payments or period affected by the order, and (4) the plan to which the order applies." Carland v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceCo., supra, 935 F.2d 1119, citing
"The trial court has the power to order the parties to enter into a qualified domestic relations order, which is a domestic relations order adhering to" the tax code,
ERISA has no statute of limitations for the entry of a QDRO. The intentional absence of a statute of limitations is bolstered by the fact that a QDRO is defined as a judgment, decree or order which relates to marital property.
The idea of an open-ended timetable for the entry of a QDRO is further supported by the case of Brotman v. Molitch, supra, 2, wherein a divorce judgment and property settlement were finalized in 1978. In 1987, the judgment and settlement agreement were registered in New Jersey. Id. Thereafter, in 1988, the New Jersey judge appropriately entered a QDRO. Id., 3. A similar situation is present here. The divorce and separation orders were entered in 1985, and the wife is now attempting to obtain a QDRO. Therefore, it appears completely proper to enter an order requiring the Mr. and Ms. Murphy to enter into a QDRO to effectuate the court's 1985 judgment, thereby "invok[ing] the general power of the Superior Court to enforce its own judgments. See 46 Am.Jur.2d, Judgments § 898; 49 C.J.S., Judgments § 586." Gentile v. Ives,
The pension which the court is dealing with in this case is a "joint and survivor annuity" which receives special treatment under the tax code. A joint and survivor annuity means an annuity "for the life of the participant with a survivor annuity for the life of the spouse which is not less than 50 percent of (and is not greater than 100 percent of) the amount of the annuity which is payable during the joint lives of the participant and the spouse . . . ."
In the present case, the settlement agreement states only that Ms. Murphy is to be the beneficiary of Mr. Murphy's pension. The document is silent as to the percentage of the joint and survivor annuity Mr. and Ms. Murphy bargained for. "`When an ambiguous term is at issue, the trial court can examine the extrinsic evidence to resolve the question of the parties' intent. Kronholm v. Kronholm,
Accordingly, the court finds that the most equitable, reasonable and rational reading of the agreement; Game-A-TronCorporation v. Gordon,
Based on the foregoing, the court denies Mr. Murphy's motions for reconsideration and to partially vacate the court's order of August 17, 1995. The court, however, modifies its prior order as follows: The parties are ordered to enter into a QDRO, naming Frances B. Murphy as the 50 percent beneficiary of the joint and survivor annuity, and submit it to the plan administrator for approval. Thereafter, the parties are ordered to return the QDRO to the court clerk for execution by the court.
T. Clark Hull, State Trial Referee