Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Mickey v. Mickey

Supreme Court of Connecticut
974 A.2d 641 (Conn. 2009)


Facts

Jacqueline Mickey (plaintiff) and Darrell Mickey (defendant) were divorced in 2001. At the time of dissolution, Darrell was a corrections officer enrolled in a state employees’ retirement program and would be eligible for hazardous-duty retirement benefits if he qualified. Additionally, Darrell would receive disability-retirement benefits if he ever became injured and permanently disabled during his employment. The trial court awarded Jacqueline a portion of Darrell’s normal retirement benefit and hazard-duty benefits where applicable, but did not explicitly address whether Jacqueline was entitled to any portion of the disability benefits. Following the divorce, Darrell became injured and disabled during the course of his employment, and he retired. Consequently, Darrell began receiving monthly disability benefits. Jacqueline continued to receive a portion of Darrell’s entire monthly benefit payment, including disability benefits. Darrell filed a motion requesting that the trial court clarify whether it intended to distribute the disability benefits to Jacqueline. If the trial court did intend to do so, Darrell argued that the court lacked the statutory authority to distribute those benefits because the benefits were acquired after the divorce. The trial court held that it had the authority to distribute retirement benefits attributable to Darrell’s disability. Darrell appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Zarella, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Concurrence/Dissent (Norcott, J.)

The concurrence/dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the judge’s concurrence in part and dissent in part.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 174,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.