Saks v. Riga
2014 Ohio 4930
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Married 1993; three minor children; both attorneys. Saks (Jones Day) earned ~ $325,000; Riga (federal defender) earned ~ $110,000 (temporarily reduced by sequestration).
- Parties separated March 25, 2011; divorce complaint filed Feb. 2012; magistrate issued temporary support March 1, 2012 (mortgage, insurance, $2,000/month spousal support, etc.).
- At trial magistrate divided marital property, awarded child and spousal support, and ordered Saks to pay half of Riga’s attorney fees; trial court largely adopted magistrate with limited modifications.
- Disputed issues on appeal: appropriate de facto termination date, valuation of multiple assets (pensions, life policies, vehicles, AXA account, concealed accounts), pension valuation method (coverture/QDRO vs. expert projection), spousal support amount/duration and commencement, attorney fees, and collection of temporary-support arrearages by CSEA.
- Appellate outcome: affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand solely to modify the spousal-support arrearage collection order (direct CSEA to collect specified additional arrearage offset by set-offs).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Saks) | Defendant's Argument (Riga) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| De facto termination date | Court should use March 25, 2011 (separation) for valuations | Court properly used a later date because reliable asset valuations were not available as of March 2011 | Court did not abuse discretion in selecting Dec. 31, 2012 as de facto date given lack of reliable valuations as of March 2011 |
| Valuation of assets (incl. concealed accounts, life policies, AXA) | Court failed to value certain assets, used inconsistent dates, and undervalued assets to Saks’s prejudice | Court used the only admissible evidence available; where values were unavailable, directed post-judgment division | Court found valuations supported by record or explained; no abuse of discretion; claims about concealed accounts waived for lack of diligence |
| Pension valuation method (FERS) | Plaintiff’s expert valued by projecting future service/benefits (higher value); coverture projection OK | Defendant’s expert used PBGC/coverture fraction method and QDRO/order acceptable for processing; avoids speculative future-work assumptions | Court properly used the coverture/deferred-distribution approach (order acceptable for processing); dividing unmatured pension that way is equitable and not unduly entangling |
| Spousal support, commencement, arrearage collection by CSEA | Challenge award amount, argue support should be computed from earlier date and that Riga’s conduct/ timing should reduce award or arrearage | Support award justified by statutory factors (income gap, reduced earning capacity due to childcare, duration); temporary arrears owed and CSEA collection should include non-payroll amounts | Court affirmed spousal support amount/duration; rejected marital-misconduct relevance; remanded to modify CSEA collection order to include specified additional arrearage with set-off adjustments (sustained in part) |
Key Cases Cited
- Berish v. Berish, 69 Ohio St.2d 318 (Ohio 1982) (trial court has broad discretion to select equitable marriage termination date)
- Daniel v. Daniel, 139 Ohio St.3d 275 (Ohio 2014) (coverture fraction is a reasonable method to divide unmatured defined‑benefit pensions)
- Hoyt v. Hoyt, 53 Ohio St.3d 177 (Ohio 1990) (deferred distribution / QDRO may leave affairs unresolved but can equitably divide pension risk)
- Kaechele v. Kaechele, 35 Ohio St.3d 93 (Ohio 1988) (trial court must consider R.C. 3105.18 factors and provide sufficient basis for spousal support award)
- Kunkle v. Kunkle, 51 Ohio St.3d 64 (Ohio 1990) (trial court has broad discretion in spousal support determinations)