2022 Ohio 4180
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Elaine Smith and Larry Smith divorced in 1988; the divorce decree awarded Smith one-half of Larry’s gross OP&F pension benefit and provided that if the plan later allowed a “surviving spouse” benefit, Smith would be designated the surviving spouse to the extent allowed by the plan.
- A QDRO consistent with the decree was entered in September 1988 but was later vacated at OP&F’s request; an entry vacating the QDRO ordered one-half of Larry’s gross monthly benefit to be paid to Smith as spousal support through MCSEA, and Smith received that share during Larry’s life.
- Larry remarried Carolyn Farmer in 1993; he maintained a single-life annuity (no survivor designation) and died in August 2019; Farmer applied for and received OP&F statutory survivor benefits and a $1,000 death benefit.
- Smith sued Farmer (unjust enrichment, conversion, breach of the divorce decree) and sought a constructive trust and injunction to recover survivor benefits; cross-motions for summary judgment were filed.
- The trial court denied Smith’s motion and granted Farmer’s motion; on appeal, the Second District affirmed, holding Smith was not entitled to statutory survivor benefits or equitable relief as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Timeliness of Farmer’s summary-judgment motion | Smith: Farmer’s motion was filed after the deadline and should be struck. | Farmer: Motion was only 4 days late, served also as opposition, caused no prejudice. | Court: No abuse of discretion in considering the motion; no prejudice; motion considered on merits. |
| 2. Did the entry vacating the QDRO eliminate the surviving‑spouse provision in the divorce decree? | Smith: The decree’s conditional surviving‑spouse provision survived; entry did not modify the decree. | Farmer: Vacating the QDRO removed the surviving‑spouse designation; OP&F relied on the vacated order. | Court: The entry converted benefit payments into spousal support but did not amend or revoke the surviving‑spouse provision; the decree’s provision remained valid. |
| 3. Is Smith entitled to OP&F survivor benefits or equitable relief (constructive trust/unjust enrichment)? | Smith: Equity requires disgorgement of survivor benefits to effectuate the divorce decree; constructive trust appropriate (citing Fischbach). | Farmer: Statutory scheme awards survivor benefits to the spouse at death; plan/ statutes bar payment to a former spouse; constructive trust would circumvent statute. | Court: R.C. Chapter 742 awards statutory survivor benefits only to the spouse at death; Larry could not designate a former spouse for statutory survivor benefits; constructive trust/unjust enrichment claims fail as a matter of law. |
| 4. Did the 2002 DPO/H.B. 535 regime alter Smith’s right to statutory survivor benefits? | Smith: Post‑2002 law allows division orders and supports her claim to survivor benefits via a DPO or procedure. | Farmer: DPO statutes expressly exclude survivor benefits from the term “benefit”; H.B. 535 did not change who qualifies as a statutory surviving spouse. | Court: H.B. 535/DPO framework did not authorize payment of statutory survivor benefits to a former spouse; statutory survivor benefits remain limited to the spouse at the participant’s death. |
Key Cases Cited
- Erb v. Erb, 75 Ohio St.3d 18 (Ohio 1996) (pension benefits accumulated during marriage are marital property subject to division)
- Hoyt v. Hoyt, 53 Ohio St.3d 177 (Ohio 1990) (explaining QDRO purpose and requirements for ERISA plans)
- Wilson v. Wilson, 116 Ohio St.3d 268 (Ohio 2007) (QDROs implement trial-court pension divisions and plan administrators must review orders for QDRO compliance)
- State ex rel. Sullivan v. Ramsey, 124 Ohio St.3d 355 (Ohio 2010) (discussing enforcement of domestic-relations orders against public pension plans)
- Cosby v. Cosby, 96 Ohio St.3d 228 (Ohio 2002) (holding a constructive trust inappropriate where statutory pension scheme governs beneficiary entitlements)
- Fischbach v. Mercuri, 184 Ohio App.3d 105 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009) (imposing a constructive trust where participant had been ordered to designate former spouse as beneficiary and failed to do so, causing inequity)