Woronka v. Woronka
2011 Ohio 498
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Married parties separated in 2006 and executed a separation agreement providing wife to receive one-half of IBEW 401(K) via QDRO.
- Divorce decree in 2006 adopted the separation agreement and referenced the IBEW 401(K).
- Attorney clarified the IBEW pension is a Security Plan pension with a separate 401(K) plan that has no value.
- In 2010, a hearing on clarification of the QDRO concluded the pension accrued during marriage, valued ~$30,000.
- Trial court clarified the decree to require an equal division of the marital portion of the IBEW Security Plan via QDRO, treating as a clarification rather than a modification.
- Appellant argues the court modified the property division; the court of appeals reverses and remands for proper interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in clarifying vs modifying the property division. | Woronka asserts clarification of the decree was proper. | Woronka argues the court actually modified the division by substituting the Security Plan for the 401(K). | Abused discretion; order reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schneider v. Schneider, 2010-Ohio-534 (Ohio 2010) (clarification of property division; should reflect parties' intent)
- Bond v. Bond, 69 Ohio App.3d 225 (Ohio 1990) (trial court equity in clarifying ambiguous language)
- Ruthrauff v. Ruthrauff, 2010-Ohio-887 (Ohio 2010) (unambiguous separation-language interpretation; no modification)
- Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (Ohio 1980) (presumption of trial court validity of proceedings)