I'm Back...

I'm back... with your Kentucky and Ohio case law updates.

KENTUCKY

Pollard v. Pollard, No. 2014-CA-000130-MR (Ky. Ct. App. 2015)
A QDRO is an Appropriate Deviation from Parties’ Agreement

Rendered: July 17, 2015
Not to be Published
Opinion Affirming

Husband appealed the Jefferson County Circuit Court decision entering a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) directing the Kentucky Employee Retirement System to pay $1,000 a month directly to his former spouse. The issue on appeal was whether the trial court appropriately granted Wife’s motion to amend the dissolution decree by entering the QDRO instead of continuing to enforce the parties’ prior property settlement agreement wherein Husband would pay Wife directly.  Of historical note, the Kentucky Retirement System did not accept QDROs at the time of the parties'  divorce, but subsequent legislation has resulted in QDROs being accepted when submitted to the System in accordance with KRS 61.690 and 105 KAR 1:190. 

The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that since Husband had been inconsistent and often times unwilling to pay Wife, entering the QDRO would be an appropriate method of ensuring Husband’s future compliance. 

Lykins v. Lykins, No. 2014-CA-000524-MR (Ky. Ct. App. 2015)
Marital Misconduct Can Be Considered in Equitable Division of Retirement Assets

Rendered: July 17, 2015
Not to be Published
Opinion Vacating and Remanding

Editor’s Note: This case has been subject to additional appeal; click here to read my office’s abbreviated case law review.

The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the Carter County Circuit Court decision refusing to consider marital misconduct when dividing the marital assets. Husband and Wife were married for 33 years prior to their divorce in 2012, at which time Wife was incarcerated. Following her release the trial court conducted a hearing to divide the parties’ marital property. Husband asserted that Wife had misappropriated $100,000 from his IRA and another $65,000 from his employer-based retirement account. The trial court determined that Wife redeemed a mortgage on the parties’ real estate with roughly $70,000 of the $100,000 withdrawn from the IRA, leaving only $30,000 unaccounted. The trial court determined that the marital property should be allocated without regard to any marital misconduct and without determining whether Wife dissipated the funds from the retirement accounts.

The Court of Appeals had a different take, holding that unless Wife was able to show that Husband gifted the remaining money to her within the 18 months of the divorce, she would have to account for that money.  The Appeals Court additionally held that the trial court must make a finding addressing the assignment of these assets. The Court further concluded that the trial court failed to make findings to allocate the tax liability associated with the withdrawal of the IRA and pension funds, causing additional reason for remand.

OHIO

Carnes v. Carnes, Appeal No. C-140520, 1st App. Dist. of Ohio (2015)
Two Wives?  No IRA For You!

Released and Journalized: July 22, 2015
Reverse and Cause Remanded

Wife motioned the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, to set aside the divorce decree, claiming the marriage was void on the basis of newly discovered bigamy (subsequent to the divorce, Appellant Wife discovered that Husband had another wife at the time of their – Appellant Wife’s and Husband’s - marriage).  The parties signed a separation agreement which required Wife to pay Husband $15,000 for his portion of the marital equity in the marital residence and to transfer to Husband an IRA retirement account. The trial court refused to set aside the divorce decree and Wife appealed.

The Court of Appeals for the First Appellate District of Ohio determined that Appellant Wife established sufficient evidence to support setting aside the divorce decree. The judgment was reversed, the divorce decree was vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Blog Posts are intended to bring attention to developments in the law and are not intended as legal advice for any particular client or any particular situation. Please consult with counsel of your choice regarding any specific questions you may have.