Runser v. Runser
2011 Ohio 3327
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiff-appellee Jeffrey C. Runser and defendant-appellant Beth A. Runser married January 22, 1977 and have six adult children.
- The case is an appeal from a Stark County, Ohio, Family Court final decree of divorce issued October 20, 2010.
- At trial, the parties’ assets included real property on Poplar Street, Canal Fulton, and retirement/benefit accounts for both parties.
- Appellee earned a federal government retirement/benefits package (FERS) and Social Security; Appellant had state pension (PERS) and other retirement assets.
- Appellant obtained a mortgage on the Poplar Street property in 2007 (co-signed by Appellee) and later filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy; mortgage proceeds were used to satisfy Appellant’s debts including a vehicle loan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Social security offset in pension division | Runser argues for offset against Appellant’s PERS | Runser opposes offset and asserts discretion under statutes | Court declined to adopt Cornbleth offset; discretionary under Neville/RS 3105.171(F)(9) |
| Characterization of Poplar Street mortgage debt | Mortgage should be marital debt | Mortgage is Appellant’s separate debt | Mortgage found to be Appellant’s separate debt; trial court not abused in so finding |
| Honda Civic asset treatment | Car should be marital asset | Civic should not be marital if mortgage is separate debt | Honda Civic improper as marital asset; remanded consistent with separation of debt |
Key Cases Cited
- Erb v. Erb, 75 Ohio St.3d 18 (Ohio 1996) (retirement assets are subject to division and factors guide equitable distribution)
- Hoyt v. Hoyt, 53 Ohio St.3d 177 (Ohio 1990) (circumstances and reasonableness govern pension division)
- Neville v. Neville, 99 Ohio St.3d 275 (Ohio 2003) (court may consider future Social Security benefits relative to marital assets but not mandated)