BARBARA J. SCHAAD Plaintiff-Appellee
ROGER F. SCHAAD Defendant-Appellant
from the Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division,
Case No. CV05-098
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE DEBORA WITTEN
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT MILES D. FRIES
William B. Hoffman, P.J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. Hon.
Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.
1} Defendant-Appellant, Roger F. Schaad, appeals the
August 29, 2018 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Morgan
County, Ohio, Domestic Relations Division, vacating a 2007
property division order on the STRS pension benefits of
Plaintiff-Appellee, Barbara J. Schaad.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
2} Appellant and appellee were divorced via decree
filed April 13, 2006. The decree indicated the parties had
reached an agreement regarding all of the pending issues.
Pursuant to the decree, appellant was to receive fifty
percent of appellee's STRS pension after his share was
reduced by a social security offset as calculated by Pension
Evaluators. A division of property order regarding the
pension was filed on June 20, 2007. Pursuant to the order,
appellant was to receive 43.27 percent of a fraction of
appellee's periodic benefit or lump sum payment
calculated at the time she elected to start receiving
benefits. After appellee retired on July 1, 2010, appellant
started receiving a gross amount of $1, 188.66 per month.
3} On February 20, 2018, appellee filed a motion,
claiming the calculation of the marital portion of the
pension was inaccurately determined and as a result,
appellant received an overpayment. Appellee asked the trial
court to recalculate the marital portion of the parties'
retirement benefits, sought a reimbursement for overpayments,
and requested termination of the order dividing her STRS
pension benefits. A hearing was held on July 9, 2018. By
order filed August 29, 2018, the trial court vacated the
division of property order, acknowledged an overpayment in
the amount of $8, 320.62, and ordered appellant to pay
appellee "five hundred forty dollars and forty-eight
cents ($583.69) each month as long as Plaintiff lives"
to equalize their monthly incomes.
4} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now
before this court for consideration. Assignments of error are
5} "THE TRIAL COURT EXCEEDED ITS CONTINUING
JURISDICTION OVER THE DIVISION OF PROPERTY ORDER BY VACATING
IT, CONTRARY TO THE INTENT AND TERMS OF THE DIVORCE
6} "TRIAL COURT ERRED IN AWARDING SPOUSAL
SUPPORT TO THE APPELLEE WHEN THERE WAS NO RESERVATION OF