2014 Ohio 2606
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Married in 1983; three children, two emancipated by onset of appeal.
- Appellant Ware filed for divorce in 2010; trial occurred in 2012.
- PERS disability status affects earnings and retirement benefits; parties dispute valuation.
- Trial court valued PERS at $1,073,048.09 and awarded most assets to Barbara.
- Court retained jurisdiction to achieve equitable PERS division; ordered equal-based asset distribution.
- No spousal support awarded; jurisdiction over ongoing property division retained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disability pension division was equitable | Ware argues the coverture and division were incorrect | Ware contends pension should be valued differently and coverture applied | No abuse of discretion; pension divided equitably |
| Vacation/sick leave distribution | Ware claims his leave assets were misvalued or undercompensated | Leave assets were properly considered in context of total award | No abuse of discretion; equitable result within overall award |
| Retention of jurisdiction over spousal support | Court should retain jurisdiction to modify support if circumstances change | No need to retain jurisdiction given current support posture | No error; discretion to retain jurisdiction affirmed or not required to reverse |
| Failure to order spousal support | Entitled to support due to disability and needs | No basis for support under the circumstances | Not necessary to address; timing of PERS payments moots issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Cherry v. Cherry, 66 Ohio St.2d 348 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1981) (abuse-of-discretion standard for property division; relevant factors)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1983) (abuse-of-discretion and equity in divorce property division)
- Eisler v. Eisler, 24 Ohio App.3d 151 (Ohio App. 1985) (valuation of marital assets; trial court discretion)
- Berish v. Berish, 69 Ohio St.2d 318 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1982) (broad discretion in asset valuation)
- Hoyt v. Hoyt, 53 Ohio St.3d 177 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1990) (guides equitable division of pension/retirement benefits)
- Thompson v. Thompson, 196 Ohio App.3d 764 (Ohio App. 2011) (coverture fraction methodology; not mandatory)