CourtListener opinion 3709220

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] OPINION 
Defendant-appellant Jack Emerson appeals from an order of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Division, overruling his objections to, and adopting, a magistrate's decision. In her decision, the magistrate refused to substitute Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO's) prepared by Mr. Emerson's attorney for QDRO's prepared by Mrs. Emerson's counsel, on the basis that the documents were substantially the same. Mr. Emerson contends that the magistrate's decision was incorrect, and that the trial court erred by adopting it. Mr. Emerson also contends that the trial court erred by failing to consider evidence proffered in support of his objections to the magistrate's decision. 
 We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling Mr. Emerson's objections, which were not supported by the record or by any cited authority. Furthermore, the trial court did not err by failing to consider proffered evidence, which was neither presented to the magistrate nor germane to the magistrate's decision. 
 Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is Affirmed . 
 I 
Jack and Linda Emerson were divorced on January 18, 1994. A final judgment and decree of divorce was entered which, among other things, divided the pension plans of both parties. The portion of the Final Judgment and Decree of Divorce relevant to this appeal provides as follows: 
 9. RETIREMENT. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall issue to the Plan Administrator at Wright Patt Credit Union * * * for the Plaintiff's retirement plan, Wright Patt Credit Union, Inc. Employee Defined Pension Plan. The formula that shall be utilized in said QDRO shall be as follows: The Defendant shall receive a one-half (~) share of the pension plan as of the date of November 12, 1993. 
 A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall issue to the Plan Administrator, * * * for the Defendant's Civil Service retirement plan through Wright Patterson Air Force Base. The formula that shall be utilized in said QDRO shall be as follows: The Plaintiff shall receive a one-half (~) share of the Civil Service pension plan as of the date of November 12, 1993. 
 A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) shall issue to the Plan Administrator * * * for the Defendant's Air Force Retirement pay. The formula that shall be utilized in said QDRO shall be as follows: The Plaintiff shall receive one-half (~) of seventeen (17) years of marriage divided by twenty-one (21) years of service. 
 The decree did not state which party was to prepare the necessary QDRO's. No appeal was taken from the decree. 
 According to Mr. Emerson's appellate brief, his counsel agreed that counsel for Mrs. Emerson would prepare the QDRO's. Mr. Emerson claims that Mrs. Emerson's attorney failed to prepare the documents in a timely manner, and that her attorney avoided attempts by his attorney to discuss the matter. The record reveals that the parties each filed motions to hold the other in contempt for failure to cooperate in the drafting of the documents. An agreed order was entered on April 23, 1996 which stated, in pertinent part, as follows: 
 The [plaintiff and defendant] shall both cooperate fully to provide any needed information for the three QDRO's and [Mrs. Emerson's attorney] shall be responsible to prepare and file all three QDRO's within forty-five days. 
 The record reveals that three QDRO's were filed on June 25, 1997. According to Mr. Emerson, he was not provided an opportunity to review the QDRO's prior to their entry. He thereafter filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Civ. R. 60(A) and (B). In the motion, he alleged that he was entitled to relief pursuant to Civ. R. 60(A) because the court erred in allowing the QDRO's to be filed without his approval. He also alleged that he was entitled to Civ. R. 60(B) relief because Ms. Emerson's attorney had \intentionally misrepresented to the Court the character of the submitted QDRO's and in fact inserted into these documents terms and conditions wholly beneficial to the Plaintiff which were not so ordered by the Court and which were not agreed to by the Defendant