2016 Ohio 5349
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Cynthia and James Fiedler divorced in 2001; the decree awarded Cynthia one-half of James’s PERS account and Ohio Deferred Compensation benefits accrued from Feb. 3, 1995 through Oct. 21, 1998 and retained court jurisdiction to effectuate the division.
- A Division of Property Order (DOPO) filed May 22, 2002 included a paragraph providing that, if no benefit box was checked, Cynthia would receive payment from the first benefit for which James was eligible; none of the benefit boxes (including “disability monthly retirement benefit”) were marked.
- In 2013 James began receiving PERS disability retirement benefits; PERS began paying Cynthia a fractional share under the DOPO.
- In Jan. 2015 James moved to amend the DOPO to exclude current disability payments from Cynthia’s share until James reaches his earliest normal retirement age.
- The parties stipulated to decide legal issues on memoranda; the magistrate and trial court found disability payments are not divisible marital property until they transmute into retirement benefits at normal retirement age, amended the DOPO accordingly, and offset amounts Cynthia already received from future payments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the DOPO entitles Cynthia to immediate share of James’s PERS disability benefits | Cynthia: Paragraph II(A) of the DOPO (no box checked) gives her a share of the first benefit James is eligible to receive — here, disability — so amending the DOPO impermissibly modifies the divorce decree | James: Disability benefits are not marital property until they become equivalent to retirement benefits at earliest retirement age; DOPO must be conformed to the decree and Ohio law | Court: Disability benefits received before earliest retirement age are not divisible marital property; court permissibly amended DOPO to delay Cynthia’s entitlement until benefits transmute into retirement pay; offset allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bisker v. Bisker, 69 Ohio St.3d 608 (Ohio 1994) (appellate review of division of marital property uses abuse-of-discretion standard)
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (Ohio 1990) (definition and meaning of abuse of discretion)
- Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268 (Ohio 2007) (DOPOs implement the divorce decree; they do not independently adjudicate pension division merits)
- Hoyt v. Hoyt, 53 Ohio St.3d 177 (Ohio 1990) (general rule that retirement benefits earned during marriage are marital assets)