2019 Ohio 1971
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Deborah Archer and Steven Dunton divorced in 1993 after 18 years; the decree awarded Archer one-half of Dunton’s Ohio Police & Fire Pension as of the divorce date and preserved jurisdiction over pension division.
- The decree stated the present value of the pension and Archer’s one-half interest, but did not allocate other assets or provide a cash buyout.
- In 2003 the trial court entered a Division of Property Order (DOPO) specifying Archer’s alternate-payee amount from Dunton’s pension.
- Dunton later elected to participate in the Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP), causing pension payments to be deposited into a DROP account that accrued interest while he continued working.
- Dunton moved under Civ.R. 60(B) in 2016 to set aside the DOPO; the trial court granted relief but this court reversed that grant on appeal and remanded, leaving Archer’s pending motion to modify the DOPO unresolved.
- On remand the trial court concluded DROP funds were not marital property, denied Archer’s motion to modify the DOPO, and sua sponte allowed Dunton to submit an amended DOPO; Archer appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Archer) | Defendant's Argument (Dunton) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Archer is entitled to a portion of funds in Dunton’s DROP account that derive from marital pension benefits | DROP is funded in part by pension benefits earned during the marriage; Archer’s marital share should share in investment growth of that marital portion including DROP deposits | DROP funds are not marital for Archer because the decree froze her benefit as of the divorce (frozen coverture), so post‑divorce interest and DROP accrual belong to Dunton | Court held Archer is entitled to the portion of the DROP account attributable to her marital share; trial court erred in denying modification |
| Whether the trial court properly revisited/relied on Dunton’s previously litigated Civ.R. 60(B) arguments on remand and allowed a modified DOPO | Trial court should not have re-litigated or effectively granted the same 60(B) relief this court had rejected; only Archer’s modification motion remained pending on remand | Trial court could reasonably treat filings as seeking modification of the DOPO and act to correct DOPO defects | Court held the trial court erred to the extent it effectively revisited/re-ruled on the 60(B) motion that this court had resolved; remanded for proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoyt v. Hoyt, 53 Ohio St.3d 177 (Ohio 1990) (retirement benefits earned during marriage are marital property)
- Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268 (Ohio 2007) (QDROs implement court-ordered pension divisions under federal law)
- Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 1984) (law-of-the-case doctrine limits trial court action on remand)