Flint v. Flint
2012 Ohio 3379
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Gerald A. Flint and Denise L. Flint were married on July 31, 1982 and have two emancipated children.
- Divorce decree (May 10, 2010) ordered four retirement assets to be divided via QDROs: GM 401(k), Honda 401(k), GM retirement plan, Honda retirement plan.
- Denise filed a contempt motion (Feb 22, 2011) alleging failure to respond to QDRO drafts and related issues.
- Magistrate held hearings (May 5 and June 15, 2011) and adopted appellee’s QDRO drafts with modifications for all four plans.
- Appellant objected (Aug 5, 2011); trial court overruled objections (Oct 4, 2011) and adopted the magistrate’s decision.
- Appellant appeals, arguing due process/notice issues about the court interpreting the divorce decree at the contempt hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process was violated by interpreting the decree without notice. | Flint contends lack of notice on interpretive ruling | Flint had notice and participated in submissions of drafts | No error; notice and hearing were adequate; interpretation warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Grinder v. Grinder, 2002-Ohio-1860 (Stark App. 2002) (finality limits reopening; trial may clarify/interpret division)
- Bean v. Bean, 14 Ohio App.3d 358 (1983) (default rule on post-decree property division and notice)
- Gordon v. Gordon, 144 Ohio App.3d 21 (2001) (trial court may clarify division to effectuate judgment)
- Quisenberry v. Quisenberry, 91 Ohio App.3d 341 (1993) (due process in interpretation of divorce decree)
- Himes v. Himes, 2003-Ohio-2935 (Tuscarawas App. 2003) (amended QDROs—need for party notice to contest substantive changes)