THOMAS E. LUKE v. DREAMA D. LUKE, DECEASED, et al.
CASE NO. 2013-T-0014
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TRUMBULL COUNTY, OHIO
November 12, 2013
2013-Ohio-5841
Civil Aрpeal from the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Case No. 2004 DR 366. Judgment: Affirmed.
OPINION
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant, Thomas E. Luke, appeals from the January 17, 2013 judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. Appellant was married to appellee, Dreama D. Luke, on December 18, 1976, and the сouple divorced on August 26, 2005. At that time, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO“) was entered, which awarded a portion of apрellant‘s pension to appellee. Appellee died in July 2012. Thereafter, appellant moved the trial court for intеrpretation of the QDRO seeking reversion of appellee‘s pension allocation to appellant. The trial сourt adopted the magistrate‘s finding that the portion of appellant‘s pension awarded to
{¶2} Appellant‘s first assignment of error states:
The trial court committed prejudicial error and abused its discretion in not following procedural due рrocess to permit the appellant/plan participant to object to the magistrate‘s report dated 01/14/13, when thе trial court entered judgment and mailed both the magistrate‘s report and its own decision of 01/17/13 which violated Ohio Rules of Civil Procedurе, Civil Rule 53(E)(1) and (3) requiring magistrate‘s decisions to be mailed to the parties allowing 14 days to the parties to object to the magistratе‘s decision; and Civil Rule 53(E)(4)(b) for the trial court to hold a hearing on the objections to the magistrate‘s decision.
{¶3} A trial court‘s adoрtion of a magistrate‘s decision in no way interferes with the parties’ opportunity to object to the magistrate‘s findings. The trial court is specifically empowered to adopt a magistrate‘s findings during the period for timely objections.
{¶4} Thus, appellant was free to оbject and seek a hearing even after the trial court adopted the magistrate‘s decision. However, appellant failed to object or seek a
hearing within the prescribed time. Accordingly, appellant‘s first assignment of error is
{¶5} For ease of discussion, we address appellant‘s remaining assignments of error in a consolidated fashion. Appellant‘s second and third аssignments of error state:
[2.] The trial court committed prejudicial error in adopting the magistrate‘s decision which held that apрellant waived the right of survivorship and/or reversion when the pension plan administrator unilaterally after acknowledging the survivorship nature of the account, required appellant to respond to the plan administrator‘s inquiry.
[3.] The trial court committed prejudicial error that as a matter of fact and law in its determination that the Qualified Domestic Relations Order was not in the nature of a survivor annuity which by its terms allowed for survivorship and/or reversion to the plan participant/appellant upon the death of the alternate payee.
{¶6} Appellant‘s second and third assignments of error raise objections to the trial court‘s adoption of the magistrate‘s decision. By failing to timely object to the magistrate‘s findings below, however, appellant has waivеd all but plain error on appeal.
In appeals of civil cases, the plain error doctrine is not favored and may be applied only in the extrеmely rare case involving exceptional circumstances where error, to which no objection was made at the trial court, seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself.
{¶7} With this highly-deferential standard of review in mind, we turn to the merits of appellant‘s second аnd third assignments of error.
{¶8} Appellant‘s second assignment of error contends the trial court erred in adopting the magistrate‘s finding that appellant waived his reversionary interest. However, the magistrate‘s decision was not based on a finding of waiver. The magistratе found the language of the QDRO did not contain the reversion provision appellant sought to enforce. Thus, the trial court reаched the merits on the issue. It did not base its decision on appellant‘s failure to respond to a pension company letter informing appellant that the QDRO did not contain a reversion provision. Because the trial court reached the merits, аny language in the court‘s decision that suggests waiver had no effect on the outcome and, therefore, cannot rise to thе level of plain error. State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978), paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶9} In his third assignment of error, appellant claims the trial court committed prejudicial error by adopting the magistrate‘s conclusions of law and fact regarding interpretation of the QDRO. The QDRO specifies that the pension would revеrt to appellant if appellee died prior to receiving benefits. It is silent regarding what would happen if appellee died after benefits commenced. The trial court determined there would be no reversion under that circumstance. Significаnt factual determinations were made by the magistrate, who, as the fact finder, was in the best position to make those findings. The trial court‘s conclusions were reasonable based on those findings given the language of the QDRO provisions. We do not find plain error in the trial court‘s conclusion.
{¶10} Accordingly, appellant‘s second and third assignments of error are without merit.
{¶11} Based on the opinion of this court, the judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, is affirmed.
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.,
COLLEEN MARY O‘TOOLE, J.,
concur.