At trial the wife testified that she believed the portfolio was one account which belonged solely to her, and that the parties intended for her to receive the entire asset. The husband testified that the non-retirement component was a jointly owned asset, and since it was not specifically addressed in the dissolution agreement, the court was precluded from dividing it post judgment. The husband also testified that following the parties divorce, he liquidated the fund, deposited into his bank account and ultimately used the funds for his sole benefit.
The Court’s Decision
In its memorandum of decision, the court noted that although it does not have jurisdiction to award property after a divorce is finalized, it is permitted to clarify ambiguous orders. The court found that the parties’ separation agreement in this case was ambiguous in that it essentially treated the portfolio as one asset, when in fact it contained two separate accounts. Nevertheless, in ascertaining the intent of the parties, the court found persuasive the fact that in specifying that the wife would keep the account, they assigned it the entire value, not just the value of the retirement component.
According to the court, “That the separation agreement granted to her the account reflecting the precise amount contained in the portfolio at the time of dissolution (Exhibit 1) which tracked the precise amount which she listed valuing the portfolio on her financial affidavit leads one to conclude that it was the intent of the parties that the entirety of the… portfolio in that precise amount was allocated to her and only ambiguous drafting lead to this situation.” Lalikos v. Lalikos, Superior Court, Judicial District of Norwich, Docket No. FA104113192S (Aug. 2, 2012, Shluger, J.).
Because the court found the provision in question ambiguous, it did not hold the husband in contempt. However, it did order him to pay the wife the full value of the non-retirement account within thirty days.
Maya Murphy P.C. has proudly been included in the 2024 Edition of Best Law Firms®, ranked among the top firms in the nation. In addition, Managing Partner Joseph C. Maya has been selected to The Best Lawyers in America® 2024 for his work in Employment Law and Education Law in Connecticut. Recognition in Best Lawyers® is awarded to firms and attorneys who demonstrate excellence in the industry, and is widely regarded by both clients and legal professionals as a significant honor.
Our firm in Westport, Connecticut serves clients with legal assistance all over the state, including the towns of: Ansonia, Beacon Falls, Bethany, Bethel, Branford, Bridgeport, Brookfield, Cheshire, Danbury, Darien, Derby, East Haven, Easton, Fairfield, Greenwich, Guilford, Hamden, Madison, Meriden, Middlebury, Milford, Monroe, Naugatuck, New Canaan, New Fairfield, New Haven, Newton, North Branford, North Haven, Norwalk, Orange, Oxford, Prospect, Redding, Ridgefield, Seymour, Shelton, Sherman, Southbury, Stamford, Stratford, Trumbull, Wallingford, Waterbury, West Haven, Weston, Westport, Wilton, and Woodbridge. In addition to assisting clients in Connecticut, our firm handles education law and employment law matters in New York as well.
If you have any questions about employment law or education law in Connecticut, or would like to speak to an attorney about a legal matter, please contact Joseph C. Maya and the other experienced attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 or JMaya@Mayalaw.com to schedule a free initial consultation today.
