Sachs v. Sachs

• Decision Date: 10 October 2000
• Citation: 60 Conn. App. 337,759 A.2d 510
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: SANDRA SACHS v. JOEL SACHS

60 Conn. App. 337

759 A.2d 510

SANDRA SACHS v. JOEL SACHS

(AC 18815) (AC 19255)

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued February 23, 2000.

Officially released October 10, 2000.

Argued February 23, 2000.

Officially Released October 10, 2000.

Lavery, Spear and Dupont, Js.¹

Lori Welch-Rubin, for the appellant (defendant).

Wesley W. Horton, with whom were Kenneth J. Bartschi and Jessica A. Ballou, certified legal intern, and, on the brief, Susan M. Cormier and Richard L. Goldblatt, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Opinion

SPEAR, J.

These two appeals arise from a marriage dissolution action. In appeal No. 18815 (pension appeal), the defendant, Joel Sachs, claims that the trial court improperly construed the property award provisions of the parties' dissolution agreement to allow the plaintiff, Sandra Sachs, one third of the defendant's future pension benefits that are attributable solely to the defendant's work after the date of the dissolution. The challenged future pension benefits are one third of all postdissolution deposits made to the defendant's retirement plans and the earnings thereon. In appeal No. 19255 (attorney's fees appeal), the defendant claims that the trial court improperly awarded attorney's fees to the plaintiff to defend this appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts are relevant to the resolution of these appeals. On April 13, 1983, the parties executed a separation agreement (agreement) that the trial court incorporated by reference into the dissolution decree. The parties subsequently filed a series of postjudgment motions seeking to clarify whether the parties intended to divide the defendant's future pension benefits accruing after the court rendered the judgment dissolving the marriage. The defendant filed a motion for order pursuant to paragraph three² of the agreement, seeking the entry of a proposed qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) that would have excluded from the agreement all annual contributions made by his employer for his work postdissolution. The plaintiff filed a motion to compel the defendant to draft a QDRO requiring the defendant to pay to the plaintiff one third of his present and future pension benefits in accordance with the agreement that was incorporated into the dissolution decree. The court, after a hearing, ruled that the defendant's QDRO did not comply with the April 13, 1983 dissolution judgment. It further ordered the defendant to submit to the plaintiff "appropriate [QDRO's] transferring to the plaintiff one third of his present and future interest in the [pension plan]. Said transfer to include contributions to both plans from date of judgment (4/13/83) to date of retirement."

The facts relevant to the attorney's fees appeal are as follows. The plaintiff moved for attorney's fees to defend the present appeal, requesting a total of $15,000. The plaintiffs appellate counsel required a $10,000 retainer, and her trial counsel required a $5000 retainer to consult on the appeal. The court found that "the defendant was evasive [about] disclosing his financial status, that he has in excess of one million dollars in liquid assets and continues to earn an annual income of approximately $210,000." The court also found that the plaintiff had recently inherited some money, but that it would be significantly diminished after distribution to beneficiaries and after payment for the administration of the estate. Also, the court found that the plaintiff was unemployed. The court ordered the defendant to pay to the plaintiffs appellate counsel the sum of $7500.

I

In the pension appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly construed the parties' dissolution agreement as providing that the plaintiff was entitled to one third of the defendant's pension benefits that were attributable solely to his work performance after the date of the dissolution. Specifically, the defendant claims that (1) the court's interpretation is contrary to the intent of the parties, as expressed in paragraphs three and twenty of the agreement,³ to limit all property awards to that which the court could have ordered pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-81⁴ and (2) regardless of the intent of the parties, § 46b-81 does not authorize the court to award the challenged future pension benefits.⁵

A

"The agreement of the parties executed at the time of the dissolution was incorporated into the judgment and is a contract of the parties. Issler v. Issler, 250 Conn. 226, 235, 737 A.2d 383 (1999); Greenburg v. Greenburg, 26 Conn. App. 591, 595, 602 A.2d 1056 (1992). The construction of a contract to ascertain the intent of the parties presents a question of law when the contract or agreement is unambiguous within the four corners of the instrument. Issler v. Issler, supra, 235. `[T]he construction of a written contract is a question of law for the court.' Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161, 179, 544 A.2d 1185 (1988); Sacharko v. Center Equities Ltd. Partnership, 2 Conn. App. 439,445,479 A.2d 1219 (1984). The scope of review in such cases is plenary. Branch v. Occhionero, 239 Conn. 199, 205, 681 A.2d 306 (1996); Hammond v.Commissioner of Correction, 54 Conn. App. 11, 16, 734 A.2d 571, cert. granted on other grounds, 251 Conn. 919, 742 A.2d 358 (1999). Because our review is plenary, involving a question of law, our standard for review is not the clearly erroneous standard used to review questions of fact found by a trial court. Our review of the parties' agreement is plenary...." Amodio v. Amodio, 56 Conn. App. 459, 470, 743 A.2d 1135, cert. granted on other grounds, 253 Conn. 910, 754 A.2d 160 (2000) (appeal withdrawn September 27, 2000).

Notwithstanding the plain language of paragraph three of the agreement, the defendant insists on a tortured reading of paragraph twenty of the agreement to support his claim that the parties intended their agreement to be subject to the statutory limitations provided under § 46b-81.

The defendant's basic premise is that the court could not, pursuant to § 46b-81, order that postdissolution contributions to the pension plan be allocated to the parties in the manner that they have done so by agreement. He asserts that implicit in the clause that requires court approval of the agreement is the understanding that the court will limit any property award to that which the court could have ordered pursuant to § 46b-81. We conclude that the court properly construed the agreement.

Paragraph twenty does not make any express reference to § 46b-81. There is, therefore, no reason to review the distribution of the pension benefits under the agreement pursuant to the authority provided by § 46b-81 for the distribution of property.

Paragraph twenty of the agreement, by its plain language, indicates that the agreement will become effective only upon approval after submission to the court pursuant to § 46b-66. Nowhere does the agreement specifically reference § 46b-81. Furthermore, paragraph twenty states that " [i]f approved by the Court, this agreement is to be taken as the parties' full expression of the manner in which they would like to have their property and other assets and problems resolved."

The court interpreted the agreement provision that defined the distribution of the defendant's pension benefits by looking at the plain language of the agreement. "The interpretation of the agreement is a search for the intent of the parties.... This intent must be determined from the language of the instrument and not from any intention either of the parties may have secretly entertained.... Where the language of the contract is clear and unambiguous, the contract is to be given effect according to its terms. A court will not torture words to import ambiguity where the ordinary meaning leaves no room for ambiguity...." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Champagne v. Champagne, 43 Conn. App. 844, 848, 685 A.2d 1153 (1996).

Several key phrases in the language of paragraph three of the agreement provide clear and unambiguous evidence of the parties intent. First, the language that states that "[t]he husband has accrued and will continue to accrue pension and retirement benefits," indicates that the agreement covers both the present and future accrual of benefits. Second, the agreement states that "[i]t is the intention of the parties that such benefits shall be divided between the Husband and Wife...." (Emphasis added.) In this second statement, there was no attempt to distinguish between future and past accruals for direction at the time of the division of the benefits. Third, the agreement further directs the husband to "take all necessary steps, prepare and execute all necessary documents to have one third (1/3) of his vested interest in said benefits present and future transferred to the Wife...." (Emphasis added.) This language again refers to future benefits without any attempt to indicate that future contributions are intended to be treated differently. Finally, the agreement refers to the wife's share, and provides that one third of "all benefits whether lump sum or periodic payable to the Husband ... shall be paid and payable directly to the Wife...." (Emphasis added.) This language again fails to make any distinction between present and future contributions of the husband, and more directly indicates an intention to divide all of the benefits in the proportions stated in the agreement. The defendant's claim that the court improperly construed the agreement is without merit.

B

The defendant also makes the claim that the court could not have awarded the future pension benefits pursuant to § 46b-81 because such benefits are not marital property, and, therefore, the court had no power to do so pursuant to the agreement of the parties. Even if we assume, without deciding, that the challenged benefits are not marital property, the defendant cannot prevail.

In 1983, the defendant joined with the...