Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Geauga
appeal from the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas. Case No.
08 DC 000591.
William Dilley, pro se (Plaintiff-Appellant).
M. Cisan, Thrasher, Dinsmore & Dolan Co., L.P.A., (For
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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 ...