Thompson v. Thompson
196 Ohio App. 3d 764
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Grace Thompson and Nathaniel Thompson married Oct 16, 1970; they have one son who is now emancipated.
- Grace taught in Worthington City Schools; Nathaniel worked in auto sales/management and later software installation.
- Divorce filed June 5, 2007; de facto termination date was June 30, 2003; assets valued by stipulation.
- Primary dispute concerns division of Grace's STRS defined-benefit pension; Nathaniel also has Social Security and a PPA/401(k).
- Trial occurred May 2009; expert testimony distinguished Napoli (post-2003 years included) and Nesser (frozen 2003 value) methods for pension division.
- Judgment entries: June 30, 2009; nunc pro tunc correction; January 27, 2011 amended judgment distributing assets and imposing survivorship election for Grace’s pension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coverture fraction divison of STRS pension is proper | Thompson argues coverture is improper, overreaches marital share post-termination | Napoli’s method with coverture yields equitable share | Coverture method affirmed; not abuse of discretion |
| Whether Grace should be required to have Nathaniel as survivor on her STRS plan | Grace contends no post-retirement survivorship needed | Court may award survivorship to preserve value | Postretirement survivorship for Nathaniel upheld (not abuse) |
| Whether Grace must reimburse Nathaniel if she delays retirement | Grace disputes burden of repayment if delaying retirement | Court may condition survivorship/division on delay | Ruling moot after Grace retired; issue not decided on merits |
| Whether pre- or post-separation agreements affected property division of Nissan Maxima and insurance costs | Grace argues 1997/2001 agreements should be binding | Agreements void absent separation; not binding law | Agreements void; court not bound to adopt them; assignment rejected |
| Whether overall property division was equitable excluding STRS | Grace claims unequal division due to medical issues | Court conducted equal division or equitable due to circumstances | Court did not abuse discretion; equalized or equitable distribution affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Neville v. Neville, 99 Ohio St.3d 275 (2003-Ohio-3624) (retirement assets divideable on equitable basis; factors for division)
- Hoyt v. Hoyt, 53 Ohio St.3d 177 (1990-Ohio-382) (retirement benefits; disentangling assets; mature vs unmatured)
- Erb v. Erb, 75 Ohio St.3d 18 (1996-Ohio-223) ( Vesting and maturation of pension; defer or immediate division; reserve jurisdiction)
- Layne v. Layne, 83 Ohio App.3d 559 (1992-Ohio-637) (pension as deferred compensation; unmatured share tied to years of marriage)
- Younkin v. Younkin, 1998 WL 894849 (1998) (coverture fraction valid; increased post-divorce value belongs to unmatured portion)
- Sayson v. Sayson, 2006-Ohio-2654 (2006-Ohio-2654) (post-divorce increases in pension may be marital property)
- Pruitt v. Pruitt, 2005-Ohio-4424 (2005-Ohio-4424) (rejecting argument that post-divorce benefits are nonmarital)