2011 Ohio 5652
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Patricia appeals after the court vacated a QDRO that awarded 100% of Joseph's Cleveland Bakers & Teamsters Pension Fund to Patricia.
- The divorce decree (Mar. 8, 1995) incorporated a separation agreement providing Patricia retain the Sysco Pension Plan.
- The QDRO stated Patricia would receive 100% of Joseph's accrued benefit in the Cleveland Bakers & Teamsters Pension Fund.
- In January 2010, Joseph sought to vacate the QDRO, claiming he never intended to give Patricia 100% of the Cleveland Bakers pension and that she instead already had 100% of the Sysco pension.
- The magistrate found the QDRO void ab initio for inconsistency with the separation agreement and granted a nunc pro tunc entry and TRO remain.
- Patricia appealed the magistrate’s decision, the district court’s adoption, and seeks reversal on three assignments of error, with a dissent by Blackmon.
- The appellate court ultimately affirmed, holding the QDRO was void for inconsistency and that void judgments may be vacated by inherent power.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the QDRO was void for inconsistency with the divorce decree | Pawlak argues the magistrate erred and the QDRO should stand as consistent | Pawlak contends the QDRO correctly implemented the decree | QDRO void for inconsistency; vacatur affirmed |
| Whether the court properly found the QDRO was not prepared pursuant to the divorce decree | Patricia asserts the QDRO aligns with the decree | Joseph asserts it does not align | QDRO void; vacatur proper |
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B) relief was required when seeking to vacate a void judgment | Patricia argues Civ.R. 60(B) not prerequisite to void-judgment relief | Defendant contends Civ.R. 60(B) applies | Court can vacate a void judgment by inherent authority; Civ.R. 60(B) not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Bagley v. Bagley, 181 Ohio App.3d 141 (2009-Ohio-688) (QDROs must implement divorce decree; void to the extent inconsistent)
- Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268 (2007-Ohio-6056) (QDRO implements division; not a merits adjudication; not subject to modification)
- Brownlee v. Brownlee, 2010-Ohio-5602 (Ohio 2010) (Inconsistent QDROs are void; but simple errors may be corrected)
- Schneider v. Schneider, Stark App. No. 2009CA00090, 2010-Ohio-534 (2010-Ohio-534) (Division of property not subject to future modification; void if inconsistent)
- Himes v. Himes, 2004-Ohio-4666 (5th Dist. 2004) (QDRO is enforcement mechanism, not independent adjudication)
- Kingery v. Kingery, 2005-Ohio-3608 (Ohio 2005) (Res judicata inapplicable to QDRO as it enforces decree)