Williams v. Williams
2013 Ohio 3318
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Married 1983; two children. Husband (public employee) accrued a PERS pension; wife worked in private sector and earned Social Security credits only. Wife filed for divorce in May 2011, alleging separation originally "on or about July 2006;" she sought to amend that to July 2007 during trial.
- Parties disputed (1) termination date of the marriage for property-valuation purposes, (2) whether the son’s student-loan debt was marital, and (3) whether wife’s Social Security should be set off against husband’s PERS.
- Trial court allowed wife’s oral amendment to change the termination date to July 2007, found the marriage terminated July 31, 2007, treated the student loan as marital and assigned it solely to husband, and awarded wife one-half of the marital portion of husband’s PERS without setting off wife’s Social Security.
- Husband appealed, raising four assignments of error: (1) allowing amendment mid-trial; (2) termination date; (3) failure to set off wife’s Social Security against PERS; (4) assignment of son’s student-loan debt to husband.
- Court of Appeals: affirmed on assignments 1, 2, and 4; reversed on assignment 3 and remanded for consideration of wife’s Social Security benefits with directions to require additional evidence if necessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. May wife amend complaint mid-trial to change termination date? | Amendment justified; error in original date; parties had prior notice. | Original complaint and husband’s answer constituted a judicial admission; amendment should not be allowed mid-trial. | Amendment was proper under Civ.R. 15(A); husband preserved objection and court did not abuse discretion. |
| 2. What is the appropriate termination date of the marriage for asset valuation? | July 31, 2007 (financial ties continued beyond 2006). | July 2006 (physical separation and end of social relationship). | Trial court did not abuse discretion in selecting July 31, 2007 given continuing financial relationship. |
| 3. Must trial court consider wife’s Social Security when dividing husband’s public pension and, if relevant, perform a set-off? | Trial court should consider Social Security and, if relevant, set off against PERS; direct parties to provide evidence if needed. | Court properly declined set-off due to insufficient/equivocal evidence of wife’s Social Security. | R.C. 3105.171(F)(9) requires courts to consider Social Security when dividing a public pension; trial court erred by failing to decide set-off due to lack of evidence and must direct parties to supply evidence on remand. |
| 4. Was it an abuse of discretion to assign entire student-loan debt for adult son to husband? | The loan was subject to equitable distribution; court’s unequal allocation was reasonable under circumstances. | Debt should not be allocated solely to husband; required written findings for unequal division. | Trial court provided sufficient reasons and did not abuse discretion in making husband solely responsible for the student loan. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1997) (failure to timely object waives issues on appeal absent circumstances placing trial court on notice)
- Schade v. Carnegie Body Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 207 (Ohio 1982) (appellate courts will not consider errors that could have been corrected at trial)
- Presley v. Norwood, 36 Ohio St.2d 29 (Ohio 1973) (formalizing when objections need not be reasserted to preserve review)
- Gerrick v. Gorsuch, 172 Ohio St. 417 (Ohio 1961) (pleadings may constitute judicial admissions)
- Berish v. Berish, 69 Ohio St.2d 318 (Ohio 1982) (trial court has broad discretion in selecting equitable termination date for valuation)
- Eickelberger v. Eickelberger, 93 Ohio App.3d 221 (Ohio Ct. App.) (method for considering set-off of Social Security against public pension)