Patten v. Patten
2011 Ohio 4254
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Della Patten appeals after the trial court vacated the original QDRO that distributed Ford pension benefits to Ms. Patten.
- Patten petitioned in 2010 to correct the QDRO to remove surviving-spouse designation given to Ms. Patten.
- The 1994 final divorce decree ordered 24% of the pension to Ms. Patten but did not designate her as surviving spouse.
- The 1994 QDRO mistakenly treated Ms. Patten as surviving spouse for all remaining benefits, not just 24% at retirement.
- Mr. Patten remarried, became ill in 2009, and learned the QDRO allowed Ms. Patten to receive the remainder if he predeceased her, prompting the corrective motion.
- The court issued a nunc pro tunc order vacating the void QDRO and adopting a QDRO conforming to the divorce decree.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to modify the QDRO. | Patten argues court lacked jurisdiction to modify the QDRO. | Patten contends the nunc pro tunc entry reflects the court’s actual decision. | Yes; court could vacate void QDRO and issue nunc pro tunc conforming to decree. |
| Whether Civ.R. 60(A)/(B) was properly used to vacate the QDRO. | Patten asserts Civ.R. 60 relief was improper for substantive change. | Patten’s motion was treated as vacating a void order, not as Civ.R. 60 relief. | Properly treated as vacating a void judgment; Civ.R. 60 usage not prejudicial. |
| Whether the void QDRO could be corrected to conform to the decree without reserving jurisdiction. | Patten argues modification without reserved jurisdiction was unlawful. | Patten’s QDRO improperly expanded Ms. Patten’s interest beyond the decree. | Court had authority to issue a nunc pro tunc QDRO conforming to the decree. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sullivan v. Ramsey, 124 Ohio St.3d 355 (2010-Ohio-252) (QDROs implement divorce decrees and may be void if inconsistent with final decree)
- Blaine v. Blaine, 2011-Ohio-1654 (2011-Ohio-1654) (Court may vacate void judgments and correct void QDROs)
- Bagley v. Bagley, 181 Ohio App.3d 141 (2009-Ohio-688) (QDROs may not enlarge or diminish the relief of the divorce decree)
- Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268 (2007-Ohio-6056) (QDROs implement the decree and may not vary terms of the divorce decree)
- Brownlee v. Brownlee, 2010-Ohio-5602 (2010-Ohio-5602) (Courts retain authority to vacate void judgments)