Alexander v. Alexander, 2014 Ohio 131

Parties married ~25 years; divorce filed 2010 after Chapter 13 bankruptcy concluded. Both worked as Ohio correctional officers. At hearing both were 51.
Curtis retired Sept. 1, 2012 after ~30 years of state service; retirement account value shown as $221,777 (Aug. 2011 figure) and Curtis testified he elected a surviving-spouse option but gave no documentary proof of the Plan A monthly benefit.
Cinda received state disability payments (~$1,750/month) since 2008 and could apply to convert to retirement benefits at normal retirement age; no evidence of her retirement-account value was introduced.
Trial court awarded Cinda $450/month spousal support for 72 months, reserved jurisdiction over support, and made no division or specific treatment of Curtis’s pension (other than allowing Curtis to keep a ~$2,938 deferred-comp account).
Cinda appealed, arguing the trial court failed to equitably divide Curtis’s pension, erred in the amount/duration of spousal support, and should have imputed income to Curtis for voluntary early retirement.
Appellate court held the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider and account for Curtis’s pension in property division and spousal support (reversed and remanded); it affirmed that the court did not err in declining to impute income because Cinda presented insufficient evidence on voluntary underemployment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by failing to address/divide Curtis’s pension	Cinda: pension accrued during marriage, is marital property and must be equitably divided	Curtis: parties didn’t press division at trial; pension/spousal-support treatment was agreed or effectively waived	Court: Abuse of discretion; pension must be considered and properly documented — remanded for further proceedings
Whether spousal-support amount/duration was an abuse of discretion	Cinda: $450/month for 72 months is insufficient and not reflective of equitable division of pension; term too short	Curtis: (implicit) support award acceptable given facts and stipulations	Court: Abuse of discretion given failure to account for pension and inadequate factual basis for award — remanded
Whether court should have imputed income to Curtis for voluntary unemployment/retirement	Cinda: Curtis retired to avoid support; court should impute pre-retirement earning capacity	Curtis: contested retirement but pointed to lack of proof from Cinda	Court: No error in refusing to impute income because Cinda failed to present evidence showing voluntary retirement or earning potential; assignment overruled

Hoyt v. Hoyt, 53 Ohio St.3d 177, 559 N.E.2d 1292 (Ohio 1990) (vested retirement benefits acquired during marriage are marital assets and courts may value/divide or treat as income for support)
Holcomb v. Holcomb, 44 Ohio St.3d 128, 541 N.E.2d 597 (Ohio 1989) (vested pension accumulated during marriage must be considered with other R.C. 3105.18 factors in equitable division)
Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 679 N.E.2d 1099 (Ohio 1997) (plain-error doctrine in civil proceedings)
Berish v. Berish, 69 Ohio St.2d 318, 432 N.E.2d 183 (Ohio 1982) (appellate standard for reviewing property division discretion)
Cherry v. Cherry, 66 Ohio St.2d 348, 421 N.E.2d 1293 (Ohio 1981) (broad discretion in divorce property division)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (definition of abuse of discretion standard)