Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bender v. Bender

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided December 18, 2001No. SC 16434Published

1DissentZarella, J.

The majority overrules a long line of prior decisions that defines the meaning of property for purposes of General Statutes § 46b-81. Because I believe that any redefinition is more appropriately the function of the legislature, I respectfully dissent.

The test for determining whether an interest, benefit or resource constitutes property for purposes of equitable distribution under § 46b-81 historically has been whether the party to the dissolution has an existing enforceable right to it. See, e.g., Lopiano v. Lopiano, 247 Conn. 356, 366-67, 752 A.2d 1000 (1998) (personal injury award);…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. O'Brien v. O'BrienNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
  2. Peck v. JacqueminSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
  3. Burns v. BurnsNew York Court of Appeals · 1994
  4. Krafick v. KrafickSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
  5. Giaimo v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API