2018 Ohio 1477
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- David Colombo and Kathleen Chesser divorced by agreed decree on June 4, 2012; decree required equalization of retirement assets "as of May 1, 2012."
- Colombo had ERISA-qualified retirement accounts through Ohio State University; the parties agreed the one-half share as of May 1, 2012 was $443,226.24.
- Chesser filed a post-decree motion to enforce (Sept. 2015), claiming she was entitled to her pro rata share of any gains or losses on the retirement assets accruing after the May 1, 2012 valuation until distribution.
- Trial court initially entered an agreed entry requiring Colombo to preserve funds and later concluded the decree entitled Chesser to gains/losses from May 1, 2012 until distribution, adopted Chesser’s proposed QDRO, and awarded $25,000 in attorney fees under R.C. 3105.73(B).
- Colombo appealed, arguing (1) the decree did not grant Chesser post-valuation gains/losses; (2) the QDRO therefore conflicted with the decree; and (3) the attorney-fee award must be reconsidered.
Issues and Key Cases Cited
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Colombo) | Defendant's Argument (Chesser) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the decree entitles Chesser to gains/losses accruing after May 1, 2012 | Decree equalized assets "as of May 1, 2012," so Chesser is limited to one-half the May 1, 2012 value ($443,226.24) and is not entitled to post-valuation gains/losses | Decree valued accounts and equalization date implies sharing of appreciation/depreciation from valuation date to distribution | Court reversed trial court: decree is unambiguous; Chesser not entitled to post-May 1, 2012 gains/losses |
| Whether the trial court’s QDRO was consistent with the decree | QDRO implemented an entitlement to post-valuation gains/losses and thus conflicted with the decree | QDRO was necessary to effectuate Chesser’s asserted entitlement | QDRO was inconsistent with unambiguous decree; reversal and remand required |
| Whether the trial court had authority to resolve the parties’ dispute over decree language | Contract interpretation rules govern agreed decrees; trial court may construe ambiguous terms and enforce decree | Same; Chesser relied on precedent supporting sharing of appreciation in some fact patterns | Court applied contract/construction principles and found decree unambiguous; therefore enforcement limited to the decree’s plain terms |
| Whether attorney fees award should stand | Award should be reconsidered given reversal on merits and need to re-evaluate equities and conduct | Trial court found award equitable under R.C. 3105.73(B) considering delay and conduct | Reversed and remanded for reconsideration of attorney fees in light of this decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Alexander v. Buckeye Pipeline Co., 53 Ohio St.2d 241 (Ohio 1978) (construction of written contracts is a matter of law reviewed de novo)
- Skivolocki v. E. Ohio Gas Co., 38 Ohio St.2d 244 (Ohio 1974) (purpose of contract construction is to give effect to parties’ intent)
- Shifrin v. Forest City Enters., Inc., 64 Ohio St.3d 635 (Ohio 1992) (intent resides in the language chosen by the parties)
- Holdeman v. Epperson, 111 Ohio St.3d 551 (Ohio 2006) (courts will not rewrite a clear contract to supply an unexpressed intent)
- State ex rel. Sullivan v. Ramsey, 124 Ohio St.3d 355 (Ohio 2010) (domestic relations court may enter QDROs and similar orders consistent with decree to effectuate retirement divisions)