CourtListener opinion 3331514

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION 
The parties were married June 7, 1969, 26 years ago. They initially separated in 1990. They reconciled for approximately 10 months and have been living separate and apart since 1991. This is the second dissolution of marriage action commenced by the plaintiff. He filed for divorce, initially by writ returnable on August 7, 1990. Somewhere around November, 1990 that writ was withdrawn. The Present action commenced by writ returnable November 30, 1993. One party has resided in the State of Connecticut for more than one year prior to bringing this action. There are no minor children born to the wife since the date of the marriage. Neither party has been a recipient of public assistance. 
 The plaintiff is 48 years old. He is in good health, although he sustained a spinal cord injury from a work-related automobile accident in 1981. Mr. McGran has a Bachelor's Degree in psychology from Sacred Heart University, which he attained prior to marriage. Indeed, the parties were married on the day of his graduation. The plaintiff is employed by the Connecticut State Police, as a trooper. He has been with them 21 — 1/2 years and has been twice promoted, now holding the rank of master sergeant. Early in the marriage, prior to joining the State Police, Mr. McGran worked at a food store and briefly taught. During those early years, he a also had side jobs in landscaping with the defendant's father, and caretaking for some elderly people at their Connecticut properties. The caretaking also resulted in no charge housing in exchange for CT Page 14688-a plaintiff's services. Throughout the plaintiff's employment with the Connecticut State Police, he has voluntarily worked overtime hours. Commencing in 1982 after the Mianus Bridge collapse, large chunks of overtime were available and Mr. McGran took advantage of it. Since that emergency, overtime is now worked on a voluntary basis. Mr. McGran has continued to pickup overtime. His shift hours have varied throughout the marriage, sometimes at his election. 
 The court finds that Mr. McGran has worked overtime most of the years of the marriage. The number of hours have varied according to both what has been available to him, and, what have been the financial needs of the McGran family unit. 
 The court may consider the net overtime Mr. McGran has worked and can work for purposes of establishing an appropriate alimony order. The court finds it would be an unfair burden to Mr. McGran to create an alimony order which requires Mr. McGran to endlessly continue to sustain overtime work at the levels he has for the past five years. In 1990 through 1993 the substantial increase in overtime worked was in response to the financial pressure of college tuition for one of the parties' sons. Thereafter, Mr. McGran has worked substantially similar overtime in 1994 and 1995. This has been in large part to afford a $425.00 per week alimony pendente lite order. A cycle was created that has continued, for at the time of the $425.00 alimony pendente lite order of 1-26-94 Mr. McGran's affidavit showed overtime gross of $629.00 week ($32,708 annually) and net of $423 ($21,996 annually). The $425.00 alimony order was 86.91% of his regular income net. That order created the need to continue to work significant amounts of overtime these last two years. 
 The court finds that the alimony order should take into account the plaintiff's ability and past record of overtime work. It does not require him to maintain a level of overtime which had been tantamount to two 7 hour overtime days every week, on average. 
 The pension of the plaintiff with the State of Connecticut is vested; it is an annuity. It functions as a replacement for social security and a hazardous duty pension. It is a marital asset subject to division under § 46b-81 . Krafick v. Krafick , 234 Conn. 783 , 798 (1995). The present value of the plaintiff's interest in his pension is $717,171 for a current retirement. It will be worth CT Page 14688-b $418,013 for retirement at 55 and $144,212 for retirement at 65. Presently, it will pay him $3,110. per mouth (after the Social Security deduction) upon his retirement. In finding these values the court accepts undisputed evaluations presented by Barry Kaplan, and, by Karen McDonald, Retirement Benefits Manager, State Employees Retirement Commission. The pension is administered by the State. The funds are held by the State until such time as they are paid out to the retired employee. These retirement benefits have accrued as a result of both Mr. McGran and Mrs. McGran's respective marital labors. 
 The parties disagree as to whether the SERS pension itself can be divided by an Order of the court. The State of Connecticut itself, took the position, until recently, that it could not be attached or assigned for any purpose unless specifically provided for by statute. The State Employee's Retirement Act is codified at Connecticut General Statutes 5-152 through 5-192mmm. The past policy to allow no assignment of the employee's pension finds its authority in Connecticut General Statutes 5-171 , which provides, \Any assignment by a member or beneficiary of any amount payable to either under the terms of this chapter shall be null and void.\" Within the last year