2017 Ohio 4177
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Richard and Deborah Enty divorced in 2011. Richard retired from OPERS in 2007 and originally elected a Plan D (100% joint-and-survivor) annuity that would pay Deborah on his death. The divorce decree directed Richard to change the election to Plan C or Plan F.
- OPERS would not permit Richard to change his Plan D election because he was already in pay status, making compliance with the decree impossible.
- Richard filed motions to correct the divorce decree and the division of property order (DPO) to reflect the impossibility of changing the election and to effectuate the parties’ intent. The magistrate dismissed the motions and the trial court adopted that decision.
- The trial court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to modify the decree/DPO because more than three years had passed; it also ruled a Civ.R. 60(B) motion was required. A hearing was not held on the motions though the magistrate’s decision incorrectly stated a hearing occurred.
- The court of appeals reversed: it held the trial court erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction, erred in requiring Civ.R. 60(B) relief for a potentially void DPO, and ordered the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing and to clarify whether the DPO is consistent with the divorce decree.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Deborah) | Defendant's Argument (Richard) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to modify DPO/divorce decree | Court lacked jurisdiction after lapse of time to modify DPO | Trial court retains jurisdiction under R.C. 3105.89 to modify DPO to carry out parties’ intent | Reversed: trial court erred — it retained authority to modify/clarify the DPO absent a stated time limit |
| Whether DPO conforms to divorce decree / is void ab initio | DPO valid and conforms to decree | DPO conflicts with decree (e.g., allocation and marital portion) and may be void | Court remanded for review: trial court must determine consistency and may vacate a DPO void as inconsistent with the decree |
| Appropriate procedural vehicle and timing (Civ.R. 60(B)) | Civ.R. 60(B) required; motion untimely if over three years | If DPO is void, inherent authority permits vacatur without Civ.R. 60(B); timing irrelevant absent retained-limit | Reversed: trial court erred in requiring Civ.R. 60(B) and in holding three-year lapse deprived jurisdiction |
| Failure to hold hearing / adjudicate facts | Magistrate and trial court properly resolved on the papers | Needed an evidentiary hearing to resolve factual disputes and alleged in-court agreement | Reversed: remand for an evidentiary hearing; magistrate entry incorrectly stated a hearing occurred |
Key Cases Cited
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (Ohio 1989) (trial court discretion in domestic relations matters)
- Holcomb v. Holcomb, 44 Ohio St.3d 128 (Ohio 1989) (standard of review in divorce property/spousal support matters)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Masitto v. Masitto, 22 Ohio St.3d 63 (Ohio 1986) (appellate review requires some competent, credible evidence)
- State ex rel. Sullivan v. Ramsey, 124 Ohio St.3d 355 (Ohio 2010) (QDRO/DPO is an order in aid of execution and must conform to divorce decree)
- Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268 (Ohio 2007) (QDRO implements — not modifies — the divorce court’s pension division)