785 A.2d 197 (2001)
The husband argued that the trial court improperly awarded the unvested pension benefits to the wife instead of utilizing the known present value of the contributions into the pension.
- The supreme court concluded that the unvested pension benefits were property subject to equitable distribution.
- The court noted that the husband's expectation in his pension plan was sufficiently concrete, reasonable, and justifiable, as to constitute a presently existing property interest for equitable distribution purposes.
- The supreme court next addressed the methods available to value and distribute such benefits.
- The court concluded that it was within the trial court's discretion to choose among the present value method, present division method of deferred distribution, or any other valuation method that it deemed appropriate in accordance with Connecticut law.
- The supreme court expressly rejected the reserved jurisdiction method, as the statutory scheme regarding financial orders appurtenant to dissolution proceedings prohibited the retention of jurisdiction over orders regarding lump sum alimony or the division of the marital estate.
The judgment was affirmed.
Suggested law school course materials, hornbooks, and guides for Constitutional Law
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.