Ohio Case Law Review by Topic: April 1, 2021 through May 31, 2021

Schneider v. Schneider, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2014 DR 00098, 2020-A-0007, 2020-A-0015, 2021-Ohio-1058

QDRO: contempt

Dated: March 31, 2021
Affirming

Husband raised several assignments of error in his appeal of two trial court decisions, and its finding of him being in contempt of the decree. The assignments concern the parties’ parenting schedule, jointly owned real estate, personal property, and a QDRO assignment to Wife.

The Court found Husband’s appeal deficient in its review based on the record and pertinent law, and noted his failure to cite case law or statutes in his assignments of error.

Thought to be a way to attract investment, Columbus, Ohio was once home to the world’s only courtroom for giants. This large gavel is all that remains of the failed project today.

In its review based on the merits, the Court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found Husband in willful contempt for his noncooperation with the QDRO transfer. While a QDRO was filed with the Court following the date of decree, additional forms and cooperation from Husband were needed. Husband then drew on the account at least twice, while claiming to have no knowledge of the account’s status or balance.

Finding Husband’s refusal to cooperate “blatant defiance of the divorce decree and QDRO,” and noting Husband’s failure to submit evidence to the contrary, the Court affirmed the trial court’s contempt decision.

Sullivan v. Sullivan, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 2016-DR-1086, 28961, 2021-Ohio-1117

Civ. R. 60(B)

Dated: April 2, 2021
Affirming

In the parties’ 2018 divorce decree, Husband was ordered to pay Wife 46.52% of his disposable military retirement pay until the entry and effectuation of a Military Retired Pay Division Order. Months later, Wife filed a contempt motion alleging the failure to pay such assigned amount, and Husband was found in contempt for underpayments of $4,394.18. The trial court permitted him to purge the contempt by paying Wife in installments and $500 in attorney fees.

In overruling Husband’s subsequent objections, the trial court modified its purge requirements by ordering Husband to sign and file the Military Retired Pay Division Order within 90 days, and pay the previously ordered $500 in attorney fees. Husband’s arrearage was added to his support enforcement account to be repaid in monthly increments.

The trial court’s judgment was affirmed in Husband’s subsequent appeal. Among other arguments, Husband argued a separate trial court order designating wife for survivor benefits, as well as the divorce decree (ordering the assignment of Wife’s interest in the military benefits), had violated 10 U.S. Code 1408 which forbids the assignment of more than 50% of such benefits. The Court at that time found that the trial court had correctly found Husband in contempt/arrears, and noted that Wife’s assignment had been reduced to 46.52% to cover the cost of her survivorship, and wrote:

[Husband] further argues that this deduction of 3.48% does not cover the full cost of the premium… If [Husband] believes the divorce decree is erroneous, a Civ.R. 60(B) motion would be the proper avenue of relief.

Husband then filed a Civ. R. 60(B) motion to “correct” the trial court’s judgment (in which it ordered he sign and file the Military Retired Pay Division Order). The motion was overruled.

In his appeal Husband argued the trial court: (1) abused its discretion by denying his motion without a hearing; (2) abused its discretion by failing to follow federal law and regulations; and (3) failed to allow him to present evidence at a hearing.

In affirming the trial court’s judgment, the Court found that Husband had argued only that the trial court had erred (and noted that, concerning his second assignment of error, such error would have related to the divorce decree, not the trial court’s judgment), and that he had failed to provide any grounds for relief.

State of Ohio ex rel Bart G. Anderson, v. State Teachers Retirement iystem Board of Ohio, 19th Dist. App. No. 19AP-293, 2021-Ohio-1378

STRS

Dated: April 20, 2021
Reversing

An ‘on call’ superintendent to the North Bass (Island) Local School District sought and received a writ of mandamus ordering the State Teachers Retirement System Board (STRS) to reinstate service credits which STRS had revised down. The superintendent was backed by the district school board, who argued the position -which was required filled by statute, despite its being a district in name only- could not be filled without the incentive provided by service credit.

In STRS’ appeal of the decision, it asserted its authority in such determinations and provided the basis for its determination in this case. While the position was functionally unpaid, the school district asserted that the superintendent was still ‘of service,’ but provided no records, emails, or calendar dates to corroborate this. The Court sustained STRS’ objections, and the writ was denied.

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.