2013 Ohio 5344
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Karen Printz and Anthony Printz divorced in 1987; their separation agreement addressed Anthony’s Sheller-Globe pension.
- The referee’s report recited the parties’ agreement that Karen would receive a “joint and survivorship benefit” from Anthony’s pension under a specified formula, and that Anthony would execute necessary documents.
- The trial court affirmed and approved the referee’s report and entered a final decree of divorce that described Karen as a “survivorship beneficiary” for one-half of the calculated fraction of the pension.
- Anthony retired in 1990 and began receiving pension benefits in 2008; he did not elect a survivorship benefit or sign a QDRO drafted by Karen in 2012.
- Karen moved to enforce the pension provision and to compel Anthony to sign the QDRO (or appoint a commissioner to sign it). A magistrate and the trial court held that the parties intended a joint (immediate) as well as survivorship interest and ordered enforcement; Anthony appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by treating the divorce decree as granting Karen a joint (immediate) interest in Anthony’s pension rather than only a survivorship interest | Karen: The decree and referee’s report reflect an agreement that she receive joint and survivorship benefits and that Anthony execute documents so she could receive benefits when he retired | Anthony: The decree’s language designating Karen as a “survivorship beneficiary” limits her entitlement to benefits only after his death; he refused to sign a QDRO | Court: Affirmed magistrate — the referee’s report and the 1990 agreed order show the parties intended a joint right; magistrate’s use of the original file was not objected to, so trial court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Quisenberry v. Quisenberry, 91 Ohio App.3d 341 (2d Dist. 1993) (trial court may clarify ambiguous divorce decree clauses when good-faith confusion exists)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (appellate standard for abuse of discretion defined as unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable)
- Baker v. Chrysler, 179 Ohio App.3d 351 (2d Dist. 2008) (defines laches as an equitable defense based on unexcused delay causing prejudice)