## Facts

- Sharon and Mark Bender married in 1976 and had four children; two were minors at trial.
- Sharon filed for dissolution in July 1997 seeking custody, child support, alimony, and property orders.
- The trial court found the marriage broke down primarily due to Mark’s extensive time spent on personal hobbies, plus at least one adulterous relationship and some violence.
- Despite income from Mark’s employment and side work and Sharon’s part-time earnings, the parties accumulated virtually no assets or savings.
- Mark had worked about nineteen years as a Meriden firefighter; his pension would vest only after twenty-five years of service and was unvested at dissolution.
- The trial court awarded Sharon one-half of the pension benefits earned through the dissolution date, payable only if and when the pension vested and was paid, via a QDRO-type mechanism; alimony could be modified downward if Sharon later received pension payments.

## Issues

1. Whether unvested pension benefits constitute “property” subject to equitable distribution under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-81.
2. Whether awarding a spouse a share of an unvested, contingent pension interest is impermissibly speculative.
3. Whether a present division with deferred distribution is a permissible method to distribute unvested pension interests in a dissolution judgment.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the judgment upholding the trial court’s distribution order.
- The Court held that unvested pension benefits are “property” subject to equitable distribution under § 46b-81.
- The Court held the award was not impermissibly speculative and was within the trial court’s discretion.
- The Court approved the present division/deferred distribution structure that fixed each party’s share at dissolution but deferred payment until, and only if, benefits became payable.

## Legal Principles

- Unvested pension benefits earned during marriage are a divisible marital property interest under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-81.
- Pension rights may be treated as deferred compensation for services already rendered, creating a present property interest even if receipt is contingent.
- Contingency affects valuation and distribution method, not whether the interest is marital property.
- A court may allocate a percentage of future pension payments (determined at dissolution) and defer distribution until the pension is in pay status, avoiding the need for immediate actuarial valuation.
- Trial courts have broad discretion in crafting equitable financial orders; an award coordinated with alimony (including downward modification when pension payments begin) may be upheld as a property distribution when supported by the record.

## Conclusion

The Connecticut Supreme Court held that unvested pension benefits are marital property subject to equitable distribution and upheld a dissolution order awarding the nonemployee spouse a defined share of benefits earned during the marriage, payable only if and when the pension vests and is paid, as a permissible and non-speculative exercise of trial-court discretion.


Bender v. Bender, 258 Conn. 733, 785 A.2d 197 (Conn. 2001)