2021 Ohio 101
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Larry and Helen Murphy divorced by judgment entered Jan. 19, 2016: court awarded Helen 62.5% of Larry’s OPERS pension and 100% of his deferred compensation accrued through Dec. 2, 2015.
- Helen later reported OPERS would not honor the decree as drafted; in Aug. 2017 the court-filed DOPO (signed by counsel) directed OPERS to pay Helen 50% of certain OPERS benefits, and a QDRO(s) assigned Helen 100% of the deferred-comp account; no appeal followed.
- Helen filed contempt motions in 2018 and 2019 alleging Larry failed to complete paperwork; at an Aug. 13, 2018 hearing parties made an oral agreement (recorded by counsel) about cooperation to secure a lump-sum payment, but the scope (OPERS vs. Deferred Comp) was disputed.
- Helen later sought to journalize that oral agreement; the magistrate denied the motion as waived, and the trial court purported to sustain Helen’s objection but then sua sponte vacated as void all post-divorce orders (including the DOPO and QDROs) and dismissed an annuity motion without prejudice.
- On appeal this court: (1) held a DOPO that improperly alters a divorce property division is voidable (not void) and thus the trial court erred sua sponte in vacating the DOPO; (2) held the QDROs were consistent with the divorce decree and therefore not void, so vacating them was error; (3) dismissed the appeal as to the June 5, 2020 dismissal without prejudice (not final); and (4) remanded for the trial court to properly rule on Helen’s objection re: journalizing the oral agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Larry) | Defendant's Argument (Helen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly vacated post-divorce orders (DOPO/QDRO) sua sponte as void | The DOPO/QDRO were properly issued/consented; court could address post-judgment matters | Trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify final decree without proper authority; but DOPO/QDRO were valid | Vacatur was erroneous: DOPO at most was voidable (court erred to vacate it sua sponte); QDROs were consistent with decree and not void, so vacatur was error |
| Whether a DOPO that changes the divorce property division is void or voidable | (Implicit) Orders altering decree were valid because parties/attorneys consented and court processed them | The DOPO modified the decree and thus was improper; Helen argued consent justified enforcement | Court: an inconsistent DOPO is voidable, not void; trial court lacked authority to unilaterally vacate a voidable judgment |
| Whether QDROs that track the divorce decree are subject to vacatur | QDROs properly effectuated the decree (Larry says he complied) | QDROs implemented Helen’s deferred-comp award and were consistent with decree | QDROs matched the decree (100% deferred comp to Helen) and are not void; vacatur was error |
| Whether trial court properly addressed the magistrate objection and should have journalized the Aug. 13, 2018 oral agreement | Larry: no agreement to take early OPERS distribution; agreement concerned deferred comp and was fulfilled | Helen: counsel read an agreement on the record; trial court should have journalized it (or ruled on objection) | Trial court failed to perform required independent review of the magistrate’s factual/legal determinations; matter remanded for proper consideration of Helen’s objection |
Key Cases Cited
- Patton v. Diemer, 35 Ohio St.3d 68 (Ohio 1988) (trial court has inherent authority to set aside void judgments)
- State ex rel. Sullivan v. Ramsey, 124 Ohio St.3d 355 (Ohio 2010) (defines DOPO and discusses QDRO/DOPO purpose in division of retirement benefits)
- Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268 (Ohio 2007) (a DOPO/QDRO is a tool to implement a divorce decree, not to modify it)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
- Pearlman v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co., 162 Ohio App.3d 164 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005) (court may vacate void judgments sua sponte; distinguishes void vs. voidable)