D. S. v. D. S. (Dissent)

Summary

Justice Ecker, dissenting, would hold that the retirement payments earned during the marriage are marital property subject to equitable distribution. The dissent reasons that Connecticut law treats retirement benefits broadly as deferred compensation and does not require vesting, irrevocability, or an enforceable contractual right when the expectation of receipt is sufficiently concrete and non-speculative. Ecker would reverse the judgment upholding the trial court's classification of the payments as nonproperty and remand for new financial orders.