2014 Ohio 3236
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Klik and Samuel Moyer divorced in 1993 under a settlement incorporated into the final decree; Klik was awarded Moyer’s interest in the LTV Steel Pension valued at $3,954.13, with no explicit QDRO specified in the decree or the settlement.
- Moyer had two pensions at divorce: Republic Steel and LTV Steel-USWA; the LTV USWA plan (as part of LTV) was valued at $3,954.13 and later became part of the LTV Hourly Pension Plan after merging.
- In 2002 Moyer retired and began drawing benefits from the pension, which Klik later sought to secure as her award under the divorce decree.
- In June 2011 Klik filed multiple post-disposition motions (e.g., show cause, fees, to issue a QDRO, to recharacterize pension benefits) which were heard by a magistrate and largely addressed by the trial court in 2013.
- The trial court largely adopted the magistrate’s decision, denying some motions, granting Klik an interest in the current LTV Hourly Pension equivalent to the USWA plan, and ordering another QDRO to implement the decree.
- Klik appealed contending the 1993 decree should have addressed both pensions and challenging the denial of relief from judgment; the court affirmed, holding no error in denying relief and finality of the decree.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civ.R.60(B) relief was properly denied | Klik argues 60(B) relief was warranted to address omitted pension. | Moyer argues no meritorious defense and untimely, inaction-based grounds defeat relief. | No abuse of discretion; relief denied. |
| Whether the 1993 decree was final and properly denied relief for the Republic Steel pension | Klik contends the decree failed to account for all pensions and was not final as to Republic Steel. | Moyer contends the decree was final and silent as to Republic Steel; relief via Civ.R.60(B) unavailable. | Decree final; omission not basis for relief; invited error applies. |
| Whether Klik can obtain relief to transfer Republic Steel pension absent a new QDRO | Klik seeks relief to compel transfer of Republic Steel pension under the settlement. | Moyer retained Republic Steel pension absent a separate order; relief requires proper mechanism. | Not entitled to relief; necessary mechanism not provided. |
| Whether the trial court properly interpreted the settlement and awarded LTV USWA plan instead of Republic Steel | Klik claims settlement intended broader relief beyond LTV USWA. | Moyer argues the settlement awarded LTV USWA only; Republic Steel was not awarded. | Settlement intended only LTV USWA; no error in denying broader relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (requirements for relief from judgment under Civ.R.60(B))
- Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17 (Ohio 1988) (abuse-of-discretion standard in Civ.R.60(B) review)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Manning v. Jusak, 2013-Ohio-4194 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga) (invoked in settled-dispute context; invited error doctrine)
- Bencin v. Bencin, 2012-Ohio-4197 (9th Dist. Medina) (final-order definiteness; unresolved assets impact)
- Hoyt v. Hoyt, 53 Ohio St.3d 177 (Ohio 1990) (divorce dividing marital assets; pension consideration)
- Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Ferguson, 2011-Ohio-3565 (9th Dist. Summit) (timeliness for Civ.R.60(B) motions)
- Thompson v. Thompson, 2010-Ohio-2730 (10th Dist. Franklin) (scope of post-judgment relief and procedural posture)