Dilley v. Dilley
2017 Ohio 4046
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- William Dilley and Tatiana Dilley divorced by final judgment entered March 10, 2010; post-decree disputes and multiple appeals followed.
- The trial court’s September 26, 2014 judgment (adopting a magistrate’s decision) resolved multiple motions and ordered Tatiana to submit QDROs to satisfy specified monetary awards (spousal-support arrearage, attorney fees, and division/crediting of Citigroup retirement plan assets).
- Tatiana submitted proposed QDROs in October 2015 seeking 100% of William’s interests in several Citigroup retirement plans; William objected.
- The trial court approved one QDRO (100% of the Citigroup 401(k)) in November 2015, requested further submissions regarding the pension/QDROs, and later approved additional QDROs filed May 13, 2016.
- William appealed the May 27, 2016 judgment approving the May 13, 2016 QDROs, raising four assignments of error challenging the garnishment/award of retirement and Social Security benefits, the calculation of arrearages, and denial/refusal to modify spousal support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dilley) | Defendant's Argument (Tatiana) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the court erred by ordering 100% garnishment/assignment of retirement and Social Security benefits | Garnishment of retirement/Social Security violates federal/state law and was an abuse of discretion | QDROs implement prior judgment awarding amounts; proposed assignments comply with court order | Court affirmed — issues derive from earlier judgments and are barred by res judicata; QDROs approved |
| 2. Whether trial court erred by not holding a hearing on Motion to Modify Spousal Support | Requested hearing and reconsideration of modification evidence; denial was error | Motion to modify was addressed and denied in prior September 26, 2014 judgment | Court affirmed — matter already decided in prior judgment; res judicata bars relitigation |
| 3. Whether trial court erred in finding $102,000 arrearage and ordering garnishment of pension | Contends no evidence supports arrearage amount and garnishment of pension is improper | Arrearage and crediting set by earlier judgment entries; QDROs enforce those awards | Court affirmed — arrearage and related relief were fixed by prior judgments; res judicata applies |
| 4. Whether trial court abused discretion by refusing to modify or vacate spousal support | Argues manifest weight of evidence supports reducing/vacating support | Prior rulings denied modification; current appeal cannot relitigate same claims | Court affirmed — claims are res judicata and not reviewable in this appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (1995) (a valid, final judgment on the merits bars later actions arising out of the same transaction; foundational statement of Ohio res judicata doctrine)