Cockerham v. Cockerham
2017 Ohio 5563
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Tara and Steven Cockerham divorced; final decree (Feb 1, 2013) ordered equalization of marital portions of their public pensions and required a Division of Property Order (DOPO).
- Steven (Husband) received a large OP&F catch-up/back-pay payment ($131,796.92) placed in escrow per a March 31, 2015 agreed entry while a present-value analysis/DOPO was completed.
- Husband averred he had been awarded an OP&F partial disability effective August 6, 2011 (award issued 2015) and argued those disability payments are separate property (compensation for personal injury).
- Wife argued part of the escrowed funds (payments covering Aug 6, 2011–Aug 29, 2012) represented marital retirement benefits and thus she was entitled to 50% of the marital portion ($19,108.24).
- Magistrate and trial court concluded a marital portion existed and awarded Wife half of that portion; Husband objected and appealed only the escrowed-funds division.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the record lacked evidence that Husband’s disability payments were received in lieu of age-and-service retirement benefits — a necessary showing to treat them as marital property.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a portion of the escrowed OP&F catch-up/back-pay (disability award) is marital property divisible in the divorce | Wife: funds derived from Husband’s OP&F pension; payments covering marriage termination date are marital and divisible | Husband: funds are disability compensation (separate property) not received in lieu of retirement and thus not divisible | Reversed trial court: Wife failed to prove disability benefits were received in lieu of age-and-service retirement; record insufficient to treat escrowed funds as marital property; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Cherry v. Cherry, 66 Ohio St.2d 348 (Ohio 1981) (appellate review of equitable property division uses abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Berish v. Berish, 69 Ohio St.2d 318 (Ohio 1982) (trial court has broad discretion to value marital assets)
- Hoyt v. Hoyt, 53 Ohio St.3d 177 (Ohio 1990) (pension/retirement benefits earned during marriage are marital assets to be considered in equitable division)
- Eisler v. Eisler, 24 Ohio App.3d 151 (Ohio Ct. App.) (trial court must determine value of marital assets before division)
- Peck v. Peck, 96 Ohio App.3d 731 (Ohio Ct. App.) (trial-court rulings on what is separate vs. marital property are reversed only for abuse of discretion)