Pearl v. Pearl, 2012 Ohio 4752

Divorce decree (2003) incorporated separation agreement granting Barbara half of Benny’s 401(k) and half of Benny’s pension for 21 of 40 years by QDRO.
2004 QDRO prepared by Barbara’s attorney, Benny signed; ordered to pay Barbara 50% of Benny’s vested accrued benefit as of June 9, 2003.
Barbara continued to receive benefits through Benny’s 2011 retirement, revealing overpayment by the plan.
Pension plan presented three remedial options to fix overpayment: (i) Barbara’s share zero with no survivor; (ii) reduce Barbara and Benny’s shares with/without survivor; (iii) lump-sum repayment by Barbara to align with separation agreement.
January 13, 2012 judgment adopted Option Two (Barbara chooses $183.29/mo with survivor) and Benny appeals; court later treats QDRO as voidable for error; remand to reinstate 2004 QDRO terms.
Court overrules Bagley to hold that a QDRO’s violation of a decree is voidable for error, not void for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2012 QDRO modification violated the decree	Pearl argues modification diverges from decree	Pearl contends court could fashion new terms	Modification voidable for error; not void ab initio
Whether the overpayment allocation was proper	Barbara overpaid recipient bears burden	Benny bears burden for overpayment	Court chose Option Two to reflect parties’ original intent and survivor rights
Whether the 2004 QDRO should be reinstated	Original QDRO reflects decree and separation agreement	Modification attempts justified by overpayment	Judgment reversed; reinstate 2004 QDRO terms.

Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268 (2007-Ohio-6056) (QDROs modify decree; not subject to modification absent agreement)
Bagley v. Bagley, 181 Ohio App.3d 141 (2009-Ohio-688) (QDROs violating decree jurisdictionally void; or voidable per Bagley concurrence)
In re Whitman, 81 Ohio St.3d 239 (1998-Ohio-) (Final orders in dissolution cases; lack of retained power to modify must be explicit)