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.

Tekamp v. Tekamp

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Warren

June 17, 2019

SHERYL K. TEKAMP NKA NASH, Appellee,
v.
DAVID A. TEKAMP, Appellant.

          APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION Case No. 16DR38848

          Ernst & Associates, David E. Ernst, for appellee

          Rittgers & Rittgers, Juliette Gaffney Dame, for appellant

          OPINION

          S. POWELL, J.

         {¶ 1} Appellant, David A. Tekamp ("Tekamp"), appeals the decision of the Warren County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, approving a proposed qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") submitted by appellee, Sheryl K. Tekamp nka Nash ("Nash"). For the reasons outlined below, we affirm.

         Facts and Procedural History

         {¶ 2} Tekamp and Nash were married on October 26, 1985. After being married for over 30 years, Nash and Tekamp both filed for divorce. The matter ultimately proceeded to a three-day contested hearing. Prior to this hearing, the parties had engaged in extensive negotiations. These negotiations resulted in the parties agreeing on multiple aspects as to how their assets would be divided. This included Tekamp's 401(k) account. The parties do not dispute that December 31, 2016 was the stipulated division date of their marriage.

         {¶ 3} The parties' negotiated agreement on how to divide their assets was memorialized in a joint exhibit submitted to the domestic relations court at the start of the three-day hearing. Upon being presented with the parties' joint exhibit, the domestic relations court addressed the parties and asked:

All right and from my advantage point [sic] that is a spreadsheet that purports to address each of the assets that exist in this case, put a value on those assets and then equally divide them, is that correct?

         Neither party objected to the domestic relations court's characterization of the parties' joint exhibit nor did the parties object to the method in which the domestic relations court was to divide their assets. This, as noted above, included Tekamp's 401(k) account.

         {¶ 4} Due to the parties' negotiated agreement, the three-day contested hearing was held primarily to address Nash's motion for spousal support. Opposing Nash's motion, Tekamp argued that Nash should not receive any spousal support since she would be receiving an equal split of their assets. For example, as Tekamp testified when explaining why he believed Nash was not entitled to receive a spousal support award:

Q: Based on Joint Exhibit 1 are you asking that the Court basically accept those sources of income as Ms. Tekamp's sole spousal support award and just ask that this Court divide everything right there and ask them to (indiscernible) to simply walk away from all other sources of income and not award any further spousal support?
A: That was a long question.
Q: Sorry… basically… you know… looking at Joint Exhibit 1, based on the planning that you've done for your family, are you asking that no further spousal support award be ordered?
A: Yes.

         {¶ 5} Tekamp thereafter testified that he did not believe Nash should receive any spousal support because "we have a nice chunk of savings that we can split and both be comfortable… yes that is what I think." This included shares of stock purchased from Tekamp's employer through a stock purchase and sale agreement. Specifically, as Tekamp testified regarding these shares:

Q: So, we've agreed, at this point, to the stock shares values being set and fixed at $342.00 a share?
A: Correct.
Q: And that you have six thousand of ...

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.