coverture fraction

• Waldon v. Waldon, (Ohio 2004)

(k); coverture fraction; divorce; marital property.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Dean v. Dean, (Ohio 2008)

The trial court did not err in computing a coverture fraction of the appellee’s military retirement benefits. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to hold the appellee in contempt for failing to designate the appellant to receive survivor benefits and for failing to maintain life insurance. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award the appellant attorney fees. Judgment affirmed. (Grady, J., dissenting.)

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Ruberg, Parry, and the classification of unvested stock options.

.... Step Three: Parry and the "Coverture" Fraction . The opportunity to establish such an "...

• Florida Bar Journal
• Vol. 81 Nbr. 10, November 2007

• Dunham v. Dunham, (Ohio 2007)

Trial court did not err in finding certain assets to be marital property because husband was unable to trace assets he claimed were separate property. Trial court did not err in using coverture fraction to determine marital portion of husband's retirement plan in the absence of evidence as to how husband's company calculated his retirement benefits. Trial court did not err in awarding indefinite spousal support in the amount of $7,250 per month as the record demonstrates that the trial court thoroughly reviewed the factors listed in R.C. 3105.18(C)(1). As matter was pending when R.C. 3105.73 became effective, trial court was instructed to reconsider award of attorney fees under new statute.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Wallace v. Wallace, (Ohio 2008)

Trial court erred when it overruled appellant’s motion to dismiss. Trial court’s decision ordering appellant to cooperate in the preparation of a QDRO in order to protect appellee’s interest in her retirement benefits, as well as its decision that appellant’s pension was to be divided by the coverture fraction method when she chose to retire and claim those benefits, was made prematurely and without the proper subject matter jurisdiction. The express, unambiguous language in the divorce decree mandates that any further orders regarding the distribution of appellant’s retirement benefits be made when said benefits achieve payout status. Reversed and remanded.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Weller v.Weller, (Ohio 2002)

DOMESTIC RELATIONS/PROPERTY – accrued sick leave benefits qualify as interest in property subject to division as marital asset; health insurance benefits paid with marital funds and received upon employee spouse’s retirement may be deemed marital property; preserving marital portion of pension; post-decree enhancements in spouse’s pension; coverture fraction formula. DOMESTIC RELATIONS/SPOUSAL SUPPORT – requisite factors under R.C. 3105.18(C)(1); appropriate and reasonable; ability to work; imputed income.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Hasselback v. Hasselback, (Ohio 2007)

The trial court erred in determining the plaintiff's share of the defendant's military pension that was earned through a combination of both active and reserve duty. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the trial court for a determination of what portion of the pension constituted marital property. The trial court was instructed to value the pension using a fraction consisting of the number of points earned during the marriage over the total number of points earned, rather than using a fraction consisting of the number of years of service during the marriage over the total number of years of service. The rationale being that since the amount of the pension benefit is not related to the years of service, the traditional coverture fraction used to determine the marital portion of the ...

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Grace M. Thompson v. Nathaniel B. Thompson, (Ohio 2011)

The trial court did not err in assigning a value to and dividing the marital property.

... those figures by the applicable coverture  fraction.  The numerator of the coverture fract...

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Butcher v. Butcher, (Ohio 2011)

Domestic relations court lacked jurisdiction to approve a QDRO that modified the parties’ separation agreement.

... interest, based upon the stated coverture  fraction, in all of [Husband’s] pension benefits...

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Majeski v. Majeski, (Ohio 2012)

Trial court did not err when it overruled appellant’s objections to the magistrate’s decision dismissing her motion to modify the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Language in original QDRO clearly and unambiguously stated that appellant was entitled to pre-retirement survivor benefits from appellee’s retirement fund, but it did not address post-retirement survivor benefits. Neither the final divorce decree nor QDRO contained language granting appellant post-retirement survivor benefits. Thus, appellant was not entitled to post-retirement survivor benefits. Judgment affirmed.

... benefits using  a coverture fraction.  The QDRO also stated that Kathleen w...

• Ohio Supreme Court