2020 Ohio 5036
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Brendan and Lisa Sullivan divorced June 21, 2018; decree awarded Lisa 46.52% of Brendan’s disposable military retired pay and required both parties to cooperate in executing military paperwork so DFAS could pay Lisa directly.
- The decree reduced Lisa’s share from 50% to 46.52% to account for the survivor benefit premium (SBP), with the parties agreeing to that allocation.
- Post-divorce, Brendan moved to hold Lisa in contempt for interfering with parenting time for their daughter; Lisa moved to hold Brendan in contempt for failing to pay his share of military retirement.
- At the Feb. 22, 2019 hearing both parties testified. The magistrate found Brendan in contempt for underpaying the retirement share (purgeable by payments) and declined to find Lisa in contempt for parenting-time interference.
- Brendan objected; the trial court conducted de novo review, affirmed the contempt finding as to retirement pay (calculating an arrearage and ordering purge conditions including filing DFAS paperwork and paying $500 attorney fees, plus suspended jail time), and found the parenting-time contempt issue moot because the daughter turned 18.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lisa) | Defendant's Argument (Brendan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brendan violated the divorce decree by underpaying the required portion of his disposable military retired pay and is in civil contempt | Lisa: Brendan failed to pay the required amount, did not execute DFAS paperwork, and owes an arrearage | Brendan: He paid what he calculated was correct; some amounts were withheld/returned by SEA; there is a dispute over calculation and he believed he was in compliance | Court: Brendan underpaid and is in contempt; may purge by signing/filing DFAS paperwork and paying $500 in attorney fees within 90 days; 30-day jail term suspended pending compliance |
| Whether Lisa violated the parenting-time order and is in civil contempt for denying Brendan visitation with their daughter | Brendan: Lisa failed to enforce the court’s parenting-time order and prevented visits | Lisa: Daughter (then 17) refused visits; had work/school/extracurricular conflicts; Lisa encouraged visitation but could not force an unwilling adult child | Court: Parenting-time contempt was not proven; also moot on appeal because the daughter turned 18 and issue became moot |
| Whether the court’s calculation of disposable retired pay (and compliance with 10 U.S.C. §1408) was erroneous | Lisa: Court’s calculation (as applied) complied with the decree allocating 46.52% after SBP adjustment | Brendan: Court misapplied 10 U.S.C. §1408 and effectively awarded more than 50% or miscomputed deductions; other deductions might apply | Court: Rejected Brendan’s 1408 challenge; decree reduced Lisa’s share to 46.52% to account for SBP (Brendan had consented to the decree); no evidence of other allowable deductions was presented |
Key Cases Cited
- None — the opinion principally cites unpublished/slip appellate decisions and local appellate docketed opinions without official reporter citations.