Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dilley v. Dilley

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Geauga

May 30, 2017

WILLIAM DILLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TATIANA DILLEY, Defendant-Appellee.

         Civil appeal from the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas. Case No. 08 DC 000591.

          William Dilley, pro se (Plaintiff-Appellant).

          Heidi M. Cisan, Thrasher, Dinsmore & Dolan Co., L.P.A., (For Defendant-Appellee).

          OPINION

          TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J.

         {¶1} Appellant, William Dilley, appeals from the May 27, 2016 judgment of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas, approving appellee, Tatiana Dilley's, proposed qualified domestic relations orders ("QDRO") filed May 13, 2016. For the following reasons, the trial court's judgment is affirmed.

         {¶2} Appellant filed for divorce in May 2008. On March 10, 2010, the trial court entered a final judgment of divorce. The matter has been subject to numerous appeals and post-decree motions. See Dilley v. Dilley, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2014-G-3227, 2015-Ohio-1872; Dilley v. Dilley, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2012-G-3109, 2013-Ohio-4095; Dilley v. Dilley, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2012-G-3091, 2013-Ohio-994; Dilley v. Dilley, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2011-G-3030, 2011-Ohio-5863. See Dilley v. Dilley, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2010-G-2957, 2011-Ohio-2093.

         {¶3} The issues presented in the current appeal originated with the trial court's September 26, 2014 judgment entry, adopting the magistrate's June 9, 2014 decision, which addressed multiple pending motions. Appellant appealed from the September 26, 2014 judgment, which this court affirmed in Dilley, 2015-Ohio-1872, supra.

         {¶4} Part of the September 26, 2014 judgment entry ordered appellee to file proposed QDROs, ordering payment of the following: (1) $19, 243.59 owed to appellee from the Citigroup Cash Balance Plan; (2) the spousal support arrearage due and owing through September 26, 2014, according to Geauga County Child Support Enforcement Division; (3) $9, 167.92 in prior unpaid attorney's fees; (4) $1, 302 in attorney's fees for the Motion to Show Cause filed June 10, 2013; and (5) 100% of the balance of the Citigroup 401(k) account, half of which was previously awarded to appellee. The remaining half was to be credited toward appellant's obligations as set forth herein.

         {¶5} On October 23, 2015, appellee submitted three proposed QDROs awarding her (1) 100% of appellant's interest in the Citigroup 401 (k) plan; (2) 100% of appellant's interest in the Citigroup Pension Plan Shearson Benefit; and (3) 100% of appellant's interest in the Citigroup Pension Plan Account-Based Benefit. Appellant objected on November 3, 2015.

         {¶6} On November 24, 2015, the trial court approved the QDRO awarding appellee 100% of appellant's interest in the Citigroup 401(k) plan and ordered that it should be executed. The court was unable to determine whether the remaining QDROs complied with its September 26, 2014 judgment entry and ordered the parties to submit information relevant to that issue. Appellant filed a brief in support of his position with the trial court on December 1, 2015. On May 13, 2016, appellee filed her response and submitted two QDROs. On May 20, 2016, appellant filed a reply to appellee's response and also a motion to modify spousal support.

         {¶7} On May 27, 2016, the trial court entered judgment, approving appellee's proposed QDROs filed May 13, 2016. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from that judgment.

         {¶8} On appeal, appellant asserts four assignments of error:

[1.] The trial court erred and abused its discretion in ordering a 100% garnishment of the Appellant's Social Security benefits, Shearson Pension Plan, Citi Pension Plan, and 401K Plan in violation of the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act and State law; and against the manifest weight of the evidence.
[2.] The Trial Court erred and abused the discretion by not hearing argument's [sic] or granting a hearing in Appellant's Motion to Modify Spousal Support as there was pertinent or relative ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.