Derrig-Heacox v. Heacox
2017 Ohio 5743
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mark and Joan Heacox divorced in October 2010; their separation agreement (incorporated into the decree) gave Joan 50% of Mark’s "bonuses, stocks or emergence bankruptcy bonuses" from Delphi for 60 months.
- In May 2014 the parties entered an agreed judgment entry (AJE) resolving pending motions; Mark agreed to pay Joan one-half of a $33,500 Delphi bonus, $200,000 in cash, and $240,000 from his Delphi retirement via QDRO.
- Shortly before the May 2014 AJE Mark executed a Delphi Separation and Release, which provided a $160,000 lump-sum payment (among other items). Joan later learned of that payment and sought one-half under the divorce decree.
- Mark testified the $160,000 was a settlement for discrimination/breach claims (and tried to avoid mentioning "bonuses" in the release); he admitted negotiating amounts described as cash awards/shortages in an April 2014 email.
- The magistrate found the $160,000 was comprised of bonus payments (including past bonus shortages) and awarded Joan one-half, found Mark in contempt for closing a retirement account prematurely, and awarded attorney fees; the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision.
- On appeal Mark challenged characterization of the $160,000 as a bonus; the court limited review to that issue because other objections were not argued on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Joan) | Defendant's Argument (Mark) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the $160,000 lump-sum payment from Delphi is a "bonus" (subject to 50% division under the divorce decree) | The payment is comprised of Delphi bonus money (special DCS cash award and past bonus shortages) and thus 50% is payable to Joan | The $160,000 is a settlement/severance payment for release of claims (age discrimination/breach), not a bonus, and therefore not divisible | The court affirmed that the trial court did not abuse its discretion: evidence supports that the $160,000 included bonus and past bonus-shortage components and was divisible |
Key Cases Cited
- McCoy v. McCoy, 105 Ohio App.3d 651 (4th Dist. 1995) (defines severance payments as payments beyond wages on termination)
- Kaechele v. Kaechele, 35 Ohio St.3d 93 (Ohio 1988) (defines "bonus" as payment for past services not dependent on time or effort)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard explained)