Murphy v. Murphy
| Citation | 2021 Ohio 101 |
| Decision Date | 19 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 13-20-10 |
| Parties | LARRY R. MURPHY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. HELEN L. MURPHY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Ohio) |
Appeal from Seneca County Common Pleas Court Domestic Relations Division
Appeal Dismissed in Part; Judgment Reversed and Cause Remanded
APPEARANCES:
John M. Kahler, II for Appellant
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Helen L. Murphy ("Helen"), appeals the June 3 and June 5, 2020 judgments of the Seneca County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss Helen's appeal in part. However, insofar as the remainder of Helen's appeal is properly before this court, we reverse.
{¶2} Helen and plaintiff-appellee, Larry R. Murphy ("Larry"), wed on July 19, 1986. (Doc. No. 2). In March 2014, Helen and Larry separated. (Doc. Nos. 4, 16). On January 20, 2015, Larry filed a complaint for divorce. (Doc. No. 2). On February 13, 2015, Helen filed her answer to Larry's complaint as well as a counterclaim for divorce. (Doc. No. 15).
{¶3} The final divorce hearing was held on December 2, 2015. (See Doc. No. 38). On January 19, 2016, the magistrate filed his decision, in which he recommended that Helen and Larry be granted a divorce from each other. (Id.). The trial court adopted the magistrate's recommendation that same day. (Id.). Consequently, Helen and Larry were granted a divorce from each other. (Id.). Furthermore, as relevant to this appeal, Helen was to receive "62.5% of [Larry's] Ohio Public Employee Retirement System [("OPERS")] pension/retirement, with [Larry] cooperating fully to secure a Division of Property Order [("DOPO")] or similarly required court order * * * to effectuate the transfer of these funds from[Larry] to [Helen] in accordance with the rules and regulations of [OPERS]." (Id.). Helen was also to receive "100% of [Larry's] deferred compensation fund/benefits that he had accrued through December 2, 2015 * * *." (Id.). The judgment entry went on to provide that "[w]ithin 30 days the parties will take all necessary steps to transfer legal title and possession of property and take appropriate actions to implement and effectuate the division of pensions and retirements." (Id.).
{¶4} On March 3, 2017, Helen filed a motion titled "Motion to Re-Open." (Doc. No. 40). In support of her motion, Helen claimed that she had "attempted to obtain the property granted to her in the parties' final judgment of divorce," specifically the 62.5 percent share of Larry's OPERS account, but that "OPERS will not honor the court order." (Id.). She argued that it was therefore necessary to reopen the case in order "to reconfigure the order to effectuate the original intent of the parties." (Id.).
{¶5} On August 23, 2017, the trial court filed two orders relating to Larry's OPERS and deferred compensation accounts. First, the trial court filed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), which "assign[ed] to [Helen] an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of [Larry's] Total Account Balance accumulated under the [Deferred Compensation] Plan as of December 2, 2015 * * *." (Doc. No. 56). The QDRO was signed by Helen and Larry and by their attorneys. (Id.). In addition, the trial court filed a DOPO, which directed OPERSto pay Helen "fifty percent (50%) of a fraction * * * of [Larry's] periodic benefit or one-time lump sum payment" or, alternatively, "fifty percent (50%) of a fraction * * * of [Larry's] periodic benefit and fifty percent (50%) of a fraction * * * of [Larry's] lump sum benefit." (Doc. No. 55). The DOPO was signed by Helen's attorney and Larry's attorney. (Id.). In a later proceeding, Helen's attorney offered the following explanation for why the DOPO directed OPERS to pay Helen 50 percent of Larry's OPERS account, rather than 62.5 percent as required by the terms of the divorce decree:
We originally had an agreement that, I believe, [Helen] was going to receive two-thirds [sic] of [Larry's] [OPERS]. Once it was submitted to [OPERS], we learned that that was not permissible and that the most that she could receive was 50 percent. And without receiving anything more or renegotiating the deal, Helen said, "Fine, I'll just take the 50 percent."
(Jan. 9, 2020 Tr. at 55). After the trial court filed the DOPO and the QDRO, Helen withdrew her "Motion to Re-Open" on August 28, 2017. (Doc. No. 58). Neither Helen nor Larry filed an appeal from the trial court's issuance of the DOPO or QDRO.
{¶6} On July 3, 2018, Helen filed a motion for contempt. (Doc. No. 62). In support of her motion, Helen argued that Larry "failed to follow through on thenecessary paperwork to effectuate the division of his deferred compensation as ordered in the Final Judgment for Divorce filed January 19, 2016." (Id.).
{¶7} At an August 13, 2018 show-cause hearing, the parties represented that they had reached an agreement. First, it was noted that Larry had signed an amended QDRO. (Aug. 13, 2018 Tr. at 2); (Doc. No. 70). Helen's attorney then recited the parties' agreement for the record:
As a condition of [Helen] agreeing to dismiss the contempt and waive pursuit for reimbursement for attorney fees and reimbursement for court costs and having the special process server to find [Larry], my understanding is [Larry] agrees and consents to do whatever is required of him to enable [Helen] to obtain her one-half of the Deferred Compensation referenced in the parties' final judgment for divorce. He has signed an authorization and release of account information. We believe that in order for [Helen] to obtain her one-half of that account in a lump sum, that means that [Larry] would have to agree to take his one-half of the account in a lump sum, and that he would do so forthwith and provide us the information so we can get her half of the Deferred Comp. So once we have that, * * * that's part and parcel of the agreement for us to dismiss the contempt.
(Emphasis added.) (Aug. 13, 2018 Tr. at 2-3). Larry's attorney stated that "[t]hat [was] [their] understanding" of the agreement, and he further stated that Larry had "signed both the [amended QDRO], and also the authorization for release of account information" and that he "believe[d] that by doing so, [Larry had] fully purged [himself] of the [contempt filing]." (Id. at 4-5). On August 31, 2018, Helen filed a notice of dismissal of her motion for contempt. (Doc. No. 68). The trial court filed the amended QDRO on September 27, 2018. (Doc. No. 70). Under the amended QDRO, Helen was still assigned "an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of [Larry's] Total Account Balance accumulated under the [Deferred Compensation] Plan as of December 2, 2015 * * *." (Id.).
{¶8} On May 15, 2019, Helen filed a second motion for contempt. (Doc. No. 75). In support of her motion, Helen argued that Larry had again failed to complete the paperwork necessary to effectuate the division of his OPERS account. (Id.). She noted that "[a] [DOPO] was filed August 23, 2017, granting [her] 50 percent of [Larry's] OPERS Retirement Plan," and she maintained that Larry had "retired but * * * failed to complete the necessary paperwork to authorize the Refund Authorization required by OPERS." (Id.).
{¶9} On October 9, 2019, Helen, who had obtained new counsel, filed a motion to journalize the agreement that her former attorney read into the record at the August 13, 2018 show-cause hearing. (Doc. No. 91). Helen maintained thatwhen her former attorney read the agreement into the record, he "misspoke when he referenced the 'Deferred Compensation' plan" and that he "meant to say 'the Ohio Public Retirement System plan.'" (Id.). She further argued that her attorney and Larry's attorney "understood that their agreement was for [Larry] [to] take his OPERS in a lump sum, not his Deferred Comp." (Id.). She noted that because the "Deferred Comp had already been resolved by the signing of the amended [QDRO]" and because she "was to receive 100% of the Deferred Comp, not 50%," "[i]t would not have made sense for the parties to agree that [Larry] would take his one-half of the Deferred Comp so that [she] can get her one-half of the Deferred Comp when [she] was already going to receive 100% of the Deferred Comp." (Id.). Helen stated that because the parties' agreement was never journalized, she could not file a motion for contempt. (Id.). She therefore requested that the agreement be journalized "as intended * * * [so that Larry could be required] to cooperate as may be * * * necessary in order to see that [she] receives he[r] 50% share of the OPERS in a lump-sum payment as soon as possible." (Id.).
{¶10} On October 11, 2019, Larry filed a motion to dismiss Helen's motion to journalize the parties' agreement. (Doc. No. 92). Larry argued that "there was no agreement for him to make an early withdrawal from his OPERS" and that "[t]he agreement referenced by [Helen] was for [his] cooperation with [Helen] to obtain her awarded portion of [his] Deferred Compensation." (Id.). He maintained that hecomplied with the agreement "on or before the August 13, 2018 hearing" and that all of his retirement accounts, including his deferred compensation account, "were divided, per the agreement and [the] Court's Orders, before [Helen] filed her Motion to Show Cause and Motion to Journalize Agreement." (Id.).
{¶11} On October 17, 2019, Helen withdrew her second motion for contempt. (Doc. No. 94).
{¶12} A hearing on Helen's motion to journalize was held before the magistrate on January 9, 2020. The next day, January 10, 2020, the magistrate issued his decision. (Doc. No. 101). The magistrate found that Helen and Larry "did, in fact, agree that [Larry] would take whatever steps were necessary to allow [Helen] to obtain a lump sum payment from OPERS, in exchange for the dismissal of the first Motion for Contempt, and not pursuing attorney fees and court costs against [Larry] for his willful violation of the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial