Forman v. Forman
2014 Ohio 3545
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Scott and Michelle Forman married in 2004, separated November 2011; Michelle filed for divorce May 11, 2012; no children of the marriage. The trial court issued a mutual restraining order upon filing.
- The parties disputed valuation and division of pension/retirement assets (Scott: STRS; Michelle: cash-balance account, 403(b), Social Security). Each party presented an expert: Kelley (used PBGC method, assumed retirement at 55) and Napoli (used IRC method, assumed retirement at 65 or provided multiple valuations).
- Multiple stipulations and motions followed; the court issued an April 26, 2013 entry ordering Scott to remove his and his daughter’s lines from Michelle’s Verizon account. Michelle moved for contempt when lines were not timely removed. Scott also filed several contempt motions against Michelle.
- The trial court’s October 28, 2013 decree divided marital property (including pension values using Kelley’s valuation), allocated credit-card and other debts, found Scott in contempt for attempted contact and for noncompliance with the Verizon transfer (awarding attorney fees), and awarded one dog to Scott after noting Michelle disposed of one dog.
- The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded: it upheld pension valuation choice, debt allocations, and contempt findings re: contact and Verizon transfer; it found ambiguity in the contempt disposition regarding Michelle re: disposal of the dog and remanded for clarification/sanctions or dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Michelle) | Defendant's Argument (Scott) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by using Kelley’s PBGC valuation (and retirement-at-55 assumption) for dividing Scott’s STRS pension | Kelley’s PBGC valuation fairly reflects market/replacement annuity value and is acceptable | Napoli argued IRC method and later retirement (age 65) produce lower valuation and are appropriate; trial court should use Napoli’s figures | Court upheld use of Kelley’s valuation and retirement-at-55 assumption; no abuse of discretion shown |
| Whether trial court erred by not treating certain credit-card debts as marital debt (including $10,500 to Prosper, Inc.) | Michelle: Prosper purchase and some charges were not for marital benefit; therefore separate debt | Scott: debts incurred during marriage and for marital benefit; Prosper program intended to benefit marriage | Court held Prosper $10,500 was separate (Michelle had no knowledge/benefit); remaining card debt allocation to Scott supported by competent, credible evidence; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether trial court erred in finding Scott in contempt for contacting Michelle and for failing timely to remove Verizon lines (and awarding fees) | Michelle: conduct violated mutual restraining order and stipulation; caused distress and cost ($60) | Scott: contacts were to negotiate/settle; stipulations (not court order) cannot support contempt; April 30 deadline not in court order | Court found clear-and-convincing evidence of violation of restraining order (harassment/contact) and noncompliance with April 26 order/stipulation re: Verizon; contempt findings and fee awards upheld |
| Whether trial court erred by failing to sanction Michelle for disposing of one dog (contempt) and failing to award Scott fees | Scott: Michelle violated restraining order/by disposing of disputed property (dog) and should be sanctioned/fees awarded | Michelle: rehomed dog due to inability to care for it; no consent sought due to fear/poor communication | Appellate court found trial court’s contempt disposition unclear as to whether Michelle was formally found in contempt and sanctioned; reversed and remanded for clarification or sanction/dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Erb v. Erb, 75 Ohio St.3d 18 (Ohio 1996) (pension and retirement benefits accumulated during marriage are marital assets subject to division)
- Holcomb v. Holcomb, 44 Ohio St.3d 128 (Ohio 1989) (trial court has discretion to divide pensions; must consider circumstances and reasonableness)
- Hoyt v. Hoyt, 53 Ohio St.3d 177 (Ohio 1990) (guidance on division of pension interests and trial court flexibility)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard; appellate court may not substitute its judgment)
- Barkley v. Barkley, 119 Ohio App.3d 155 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997) (marital property presumption; trial court normally distributes marital estate equally)
- Cherry v. Cherry, 66 Ohio St.2d 348 (Ohio 1981) (trial courts have broad discretion to determine equitable property division)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (trial court best positioned to judge witness credibility)