Amending a QDRO That Does Not Reflect a Divorce Decree's Intent

Schneider v. Schneider
2010-Ohio-534
Fifth Appellate District
Stark County
-Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO)

Appellant, Paul and Appellee Helen were divorced on November 7, 1996. The decree divided appellant’s pension equally (50/50). A QDRO was filed and approved by the trial court on March 4, 1997. Upon retiring on December 31, 2008, appellant discovered appellee woudl receive fifty percent of his pension for the entire period of his employment rather than for the years of the parties’ marriage.

On October 28, 2008, appellant filed a motion for clarification. On March 30, 2009, the trial court found no ambiguity in its order and denied appellant’s motion for clarification. Appellant appealed claiming the QDRO incorrectly applied a coverture formula because of an ambiguity in the divorce decree’s award of pension benefits.

The QDRO language included the 50% of the "Marital Portion of the Partifipant’s Accrued Benefit," but the denominator as defined extended the benefit to the entire time the appellant participated in the plan. The ultimate result was that appellee would receive a benefit for some twelve years beyond the termination of marriage.

After finding that the QDRO acknowledged it pertained only to the marital portion the appellate court reversed and remanded the trial court to modify the QDRO to correct the clear error in the denominator.

From the Opinion:

{¶10} "The trial court has broad discretion in clarifying ambiguous language by considering not only the intent of the parties but the equities involved.***An interpretive decision by the trial court cannot be disturbed upon appeal absent a showing of an abuse of discretion.***" Bond v. Bond (1990), 69 Ohio App.3d 225, 227-228, citations omitted. In order to find an abuse of discretion, we must determine the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable and not merely an error of law or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983) 5 Ohio St.3d 217.

{¶11} In Mckinney v. Mckinney (2001), 142 Ohio App.3d 604, 608, our brethren from the Second District explained the following:
{¶12} "A QDRO is a current distribution of the rights in a retirement account that is payable in the future, when the payee retires. It is ordinarily issued subsequent to and separate from the decree of divorce itself, after the employer payor has approved its terms as conforming with the particular pension plan involved. A QDRO is, therefore, merely an order in aid of execution on the property division ordered in the divorce decree. So long as the QDRO is consistent with the decree, it does not constitute a modification, which R.C. 3109.171(I) prohibits, and the court does not lack jurisdiction to issue it. Tarbert v. Tarbert (Sept. 27, 1996), Clark App. No. 96-CA-0036, unreported."

{¶16} The QDRO filed March 4, 1997 specifically stated the following:
{¶17} "7. Amount of Alternate Payee's Benefit: This Order assigns to Alternate Payee an amount equal to the actuarial equivalent of Fifty Percent (50%) of the Marital Portion of the Participant's Accrued Benefit under the Plan as of the Participant's benefit commencement date, or the Alternate Payee's benefit commencement date, if earlier. The Marital Portion shall be determined by multiplying the Participant's Accrued Benefit by a fraction (less than or equal to 1.0), the numerator of which is the number of months of the Participant's participation in the Plan earned during the marriage (from June 8, 1968 to November 7, 1996), and the denominator of which is the total number of months of the Participant's participation in the Plan as of the earlier of his date of cessation of benefit accruals or the date that Alternate Payee commences her benefits hereunder."

{¶18} The QDRO language includes the fifty percent of the "Marital Portion of the Participant's Accrued Benefit," but the denominator as defined extends the benefit to the entire time appellant participated in the plan. The ultimate result is that appellee will receive a benefit for some twelve years beyond the termination of the marriage.

{¶19} As explained in McKinney, supra, a QDRO is basically a vehicle to effectuate the provisions of a divorce decree. It is the equivalent of a quitclaim deed. A trial court therefore has the right and privilege to amend a QDRO that does not reflect a divorce decree's intent.

{¶20} As we read the divorce decree in toto, paragraph five cited supra divided a marital asset; therefore, the retirement benefit should be determined by the amount of time the parties were married. See, R.C. 3105.171(A)(3)(a). Even the QDRO acknowledges it pertains to the marital portion.