Blaine v. Blaine
2011 Ohio 1654
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Man William Blaine appeals a trial court decision overruling his Civ.R. 60(B) motion seeking relief from judgment.
- Dissolution petition was filed Nov. 26, 2008 with a separation agreement stating both parties’ 401(k) was valued at $170,501.08 and to be split equally.
- February 2, 2009 dissolution decree incorporated the separation agreement.
- May 21, 2009 a QDRO was entered allocating $85,250.54 to appellee and segregating appellee’s share on a pro rata basis.
- Appellant later argued the QDRO conflicted with the separation agreement; he claimed market changes reduced the value of the 401(k).
- Court treated the motion as Civ.R. 60(B) relief but ultimately held the QDRO is not void and properly implements the decree.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the QDRO conflicts with the dissolution decree. | Blaine contends QDRO deviates from agreed split of 401(k). | Blaine’s objected amount aligns with the agreed total; QDRO complies with the decree. | QDRO does not conflict with the separation agreement. |
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B) relief is proper when challenging a QDRO. | Blaine asserts entitlement to relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B). | QDj is void only if inconsistent with decree; motion misapplied Civ.R. 60(B). | Not proper Civ.R. 60(B) relief; the issue is whether the QDRO is void for inconsistency. |
| Whether the trial court had authority to vacate a void judgment if the QDRO were void. | If void, the QDRO could be vacated under inherent power, not Civ.R. 60(B). | QDRO is not void; no vacatur required. | Court’s inherent authority can vacate a void judgment; here the QDRO is not void. |
| Whether the lack of an evidentiary hearing on Civ.R. 60(B) motion requires reversal. | Appellant should have been entitled to a hearing. | Motion was not proper Civ.R. 60(B); no right to an evidentiary hearing. | Hearing not required; the issue is resolved on law, not evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bagley v. Bagley, 181 Ohio St.3d 141 (2009) (QDRO conflicts render court void when inconsistent with decree)
- GTE Automatic Elec. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976) (requirements for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- State ex rel. Sullivan v. Ramsey, 124 Ohio St.3d 355 (2010) (QDRO must be consistent with decree; void if inconsistent)
- Brownlee v. Brownlee, 2010-Ohio-5602 (Ohio App.) (inherent power to vacate void decrees; Civ.R. 60(B) not required)
- Beachler v. Beachler, 2007-Ohio-1220 (Ohio App.) (common-law motion to vacate void judgments when Civ.R. 60(B) misapplied)
- Jones v. Jordan, 2007-Ohio-2519 (Ohio App.) (void vs voidable judgments and related procedures)
- Veidt v. Cook, 2004-Ohio-3170 (Ohio App.) (value fluctuations of retirement benefits and effect on division)
- Cisco v. Cisco, 2009-Ohio-884 (Ohio App.) (awards of one-half of a specified amount exclude future increases)
- Lamb v. Lamb, Dec. 4, 1998 (Paulding App.) (QDROs may not enlarge or diminish relief from decree)