## Facts

- The parties were married for approximately 31 years and had two children.
- Early in the marriage, the couple lived modestly; the wife worked as a music teacher while the husband pursued an MBA, then later left paid work to focus on the household and children.
- The wife acted as a full-time homemaker and “corporate spouse,” including hosting and attending business-related events supporting the husband’s executive career.
- The husband became a senior corporate executive with substantial compensation, including salary, bonuses, stock options, pension interests, and other deferred benefits.
- The marital estate was very large, and the dissolution proceedings focused on financial issues: property division and alimony.
- At trial, the parties stipulated the marriage had irretrievably broken down, requested dissolution, and agreed no evidence would be presented on fault or causes.
- The litigation involved extensive financial proof and detailed asset-by-asset analysis.

## Issues

1. How should a very large marital estate be equitably distributed under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-81 in a long-term marriage with a high-earning executive spouse and a non-wage-earning spouse who made substantial domestic and corporate-spouse contributions?
2. How must the court recognize and weigh nonmonetary contributions when allocating property and awarding alimony under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 46b-81 and 46b-82?
3. How should complex executive compensation and benefits (including stock options, pensions, and deferred compensation) be classified, valued, and divided within Connecticut’s equitable distribution scheme?

## Decision

- The court dissolved the marriage based on the parties’ stipulation of irretrievable breakdown.
- The court entered detailed financial orders distributing the marital estate and awarding alimony.
- The court gave substantial weight to the wife’s nonmonetary contributions (homemaking, childcare, and corporate-spouse functions) as contributions to the acquisition, preservation, and appreciation of marital wealth.
- The court rejected any automatic rule requiring an equal (50/50) division, instead applying an individualized equitable distribution analysis guided by the statutory factors.
- The court treated a broad range of executive compensation interests as subject to allocation to the extent attributable to the marriage, using valuation and distribution methods suited to the particular asset (including present-value and deferred-distribution approaches).

## Legal Principles

- Property division and alimony must be decided by considering all applicable statutory factors in Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 46b-81 and 46b-82; a court may not reduce the inquiry to a single-factor test such as lifestyle maintenance or current income.
- Connecticut follows equitable distribution; equality is permitted but not required, and the proper allocation turns on the statutory criteria and the facts of the marriage.
- Nonmonetary spousal efforts—such as homemaking, child-rearing, and career-support services—may constitute contributions to the acquisition, preservation, or appreciation of marital assets for purposes of § 46b-81.
- Executive compensation and deferred benefits earned or established during the marriage (including options and pension-related interests) may be treated as divisible property interests, with the method of division depending on vesting, valuation feasibility, and the nature of the asset.
- In long-term marriages with substantial earning disparities, alimony determinations should reflect the statutory factors, including the length of the marriage, the parties’ earning capacities and needs, and the relationship between property division and ongoing support.

## Conclusion

The court dissolved a long-term, high-asset marriage and issued comprehensive financial orders that credited nonmonetary marital contributions, applied a factor-driven equitable distribution framework rather than a presumptive equal split, and allocated complex executive compensation while also awarding alimony consistent with the parties’ post-dissolution economic realities.


Wendt v. Wendt, No. FA96 0149562 S, 1998 WL 161165 (Conn. Super. Ct. Mar. 31, 1998)