Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Warren
SHERYL K. TEKAMP NKA NASH, Appellee,
DAVID A. TEKAMP, Appellant.
FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DOMESTIC RELATIONS
DIVISION Case No. 16DR38848
& Associates, David E. Ernst, for appellee
Rittgers & Rittgers, Juliette Gaffney Dame, for appellant
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
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?
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?
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?
Q: And that you have six thousand of ...