November Case Law Update

Nothing says "thank you" in November like a QDRO blog update.  So mooooove over turkey leftovers, and make room for an extra helping of QDROs:  Always delicious, nutritious, and pairs well with a red!

Reed v. Reed, Appeal No. 2015 02 ES 00094, 9th App. Dist. of Ohio (2017)
‘Til Death Do Us Part

Released and Journalized: October 30, 2017
Affirming

The parties' 2013 decree left unresolved the division of certain contested separate property claims, which remained unresolved at the time of Husband's death in 2015.  At issue was the burden of proof for establishing a claim of separate property (in this case, the traceability of a jointly held investment account), as further complicated by the commingling of said separate property.  The trial court assumed probate administration, to avoid conflict with the divorce proceedings, and eventually Wife filed this appeal.

Setting aside the testator/estate as party to a divorce aspect of this case -- which is deserving of discussion and reading unto itself -- readers may find the decision interesting for its overview of Ohio case law and examples of what is generally deemed an acceptable level of evidence to establish a separate interest claim in otherwise marital property.   In this matter, Wife was overruled regarding her argument against Husband’s non-marital interest in a joint investment account.  The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the divorce did not abate at Husband’s death, and that Husband had sufficiently established that a portion of the parties’ joint investment account was funded by his own inherited investment account, such that the inherited portion should be awarded to Husband, and the balance divided by the parties.

Iske v. Iske, Appeal No. 17AP-215, 10th App. Dist. of Ohio (2017)
“Stuff that’s hidden and murky and ambiguous is scary because you don’t know what it does.” – Jerry Garcia

Released and Journalized: November 28, 2017
Enforcing Decree (in Regard to Retirement Accounts with the Understanding that Social Security Accounts are Not to be Divided and May Only be Considered for Purposes of Dividing a Public Pension)

Husband argued that the trial court erred in its consideration of Husband's Social Security benefits as part of the determination of marital property rights.  First, Husband argued that since his Social Security benefits were itemized and valued in the court’s 'list' of the parties’ marital retirement benefits, Wife’s Social Security benefits should likewise have been valued and made part of the list.  The Court of Appeals observed that the trial court record was deficient as to Wife’s Social Security benefits, and therefore, the trial court’s failure to consider evidence not in record was not abuse of its discretion.

Husband further argued that the trial court’s direction that “the [retirement] plans shall be equalized between the parties,” was at worst a violation of law, and at best ambiguous. Specifically, Husband argued the court’s order could be construed in such a way as to allow his Social Security benefits to be divided or considered other than for the purpose of dividing Wife’s public retirement system benefits.  Such action,  Husband reasoned, would be a violation of the proscription established by the legislature in 2009, wherein  R.C. § 3105.171(F)(9) was revised to significantly limit a trial court’s ability to consider Social Security benefits in making an equitable distribution of marital property in a divorce proceeding.  R.C. § 3105.171(F)(9) currently provides that a court may consider “[a]ny retirement benefits of the spouses, excluding the social security benefits of a spouse except as may be relevant for purposes of dividing a public pension.”  (Emphasis added.)  

The Court of Appeals agreed with Husband that the trial court’s order to 'equalize all retirement benefits' was ambiguous and could be construed in such a way as to inappropriately consider Husband’s Social Security benefits for purposes other than as permitted by R.C. § 3105.171(F)(9).  In remanding for correction, and directing that the trial court order should be construed to include Husband’s Social Security benefits solely for purposes of dividing Wife’s public retirement system benefits, the Court relied upon a lineage of Ohio cases recognizing that ambiguous court orders often require interpretation by the same or another court.

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.