2018 Ohio 3535
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Lisa and David Longo divorced after 17 years; Lisa had three retirement accounts (Mondelez 401(k), GSK 401(k), GSK Cash Balance Pension) accumulated during the marriage.
- The June 2, 2016 final divorce decree stated Lisa "is to receive her premarital portion" of those retirement assets and required Lisa’s counsel to prepare QDROs; the court retained jurisdiction to maintain qualified status and enforce assignments.
- Husband repeatedly rejected proposed QDRO drafts as noncompliant with the plan administrator; the court ordered QDROs be pre-approved by the plan administrator before submission.
- Over the next 14 months, multiple motions and communications occurred; wife’s counsel did not produce pre-approved QDROs or evidentiary proof of any premarital balances despite repeated requests.
- On August 18, 2017 the trial court, on its own review, found the retirement accounts had no premarital portions and ordered husband’s counsel to prepare the QDROs; the appellate majority reversed for lack of evidentiary support, dissent would have affirmed based on wife’s failure to meet her burden.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Longo) | Defendant's Argument (Longo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court exceeded jurisdiction by finding wife had no premarital interest | Finding conflicts with divorce decree; court may not modify distribution without evidence/consent | Court had authority to interpret/enforce decree; wife failed to prove premarital interest | Majority: court did not exceed jurisdiction but reversed because record lacked evidence and explanation; remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether the August 18, 2017 entry was properly appealed rather than the later nunc pro tunc | Appeal from original judgment is proper because nunc pro tunc corrected clerical error only | N/A (argued appeal should be from nunc pro tunc) | Appeal from August 18, 2017 judgment was proper |
| Whether the court could resolve QDRO dispute without evidentiary hearing | Decree required QDROs but did not resolve extent of premarital interest; any finding requires evidence | Wife failed to present evidence of premarital portion despite opportunities; court may enforce decree | Majority: finding unsupported by record — reversal; Dissent: wife failed burden so finding justified |
| Whether wife bore burden to prove premarital (separate) portion of retirement accounts | Wife contends decree entitles her to premarital portion but did not fix amount; needs evidence to quantify | Husband: wife had burden and failed to produce proof; delays and noncompliant QDROs support finding of no premarital portion | Court: party seeking separate property bears burden; appellate majority found no evidence provided so remand; dissent would affirm for failure to meet burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Schrader v. Schrader, 108 Ohio App.3d 25 (6th Dist. 1995) (retirement benefits are marital assets subject to distribution)
- Hoyt v. Hoyt, 53 Ohio St.3d 177 (Ohio 1990) (framework recognizing retirement benefits as divisible property)