FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. DR-2011-07-2007
B. CARTWRIGHT-JONES, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
MELISSA GRAHAM-HURD and ERIN N. DAZEY, Attorneys at Law, for
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
A. TEODOSIO JUDGE.
Michael K. Tustin appeals the qualified domestic relations
orders issued by the trial court on September 1, 2017, and
the entry of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas,
Domestic Relations Division, denying his motion for relief
from judgment. We affirm.
In 2011, Julia Tustin, nka Julia Hoffman, filed a complaint
for divorce from Michael Tustin. After a 2013 trial, a decree
of divorce was entered, followed by an appeal to this Court.
We affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding the case
to the trial court to determine the duration of the marriage
and to revisit its determination regarding the equitable
division of marital property. After again proceeding to
trial, the trial court issued a decree of divorce on April 8,
The decree of divorce, in providing for the division of
marital property, ordered that the parties' defined
contribution retirement plans were to be divided equally,
with Ms. Hoffman to transfer to Mr. Tustin the amount of
$103, 436.62 in order to equalize the value of the accounts.
The decree also provided that the parties were to each retain
a motor vehicle, with Ms. Hoffman owing Mr. Tustin $2, 040.00
to equalize the values. The trial court further found that
Mr. Tustin owed Ms. Hoffman $7, 101.42 for healthcare
expenses, attorney fees, taxes, and insurance, and in
offsetting that amount against the $2, 040.00 owed to Mr.
Tustin, granted judgment against Mr. Tustin in the amount of
$5, 661.25, plus statutory interest. The decree further
provided that Ms. Hoffman's pension plan was to be
divided equally by a qualified domestic relations order
Initially the parties submitted QDROs based upon the de facto
marriage termination date of December 31, 2011, but were
informed by QDRO Consultants that FirstEnergy Corp. was
unable to calculate gains or losses on any participant
accounts for periods prior to January 1, 2014. An amended
savings plan QDRO replacing the date of December 31, 2011
with January 1, 2014, was submitted to the trial court on
August 28, 2017, without the approval of Mr. Tustin, and the
trial court filed the QDROs for both the savings plan and the
pension plan on September 1, 2017.
Mr. Tustin appealed the two QDROs to this Court. We stayed
the matter upon the motion of the parties and remanded the
case for proceedings related to a motion for relief from
judgment filed by Mr. Tustin. On June 13, 2018, the trial
court denied Mr. Tustin's motion for relief from
judgment. Mr. Tustin subsequently filed a second appeal, this
one with regard to the trial court's entry denying his
motion for relief from judgment.
At the outset we note that Mr. Tustin submitted the same
brief with the same assignment or error for both appeals,
making the two appeals duplicative. We therefore sua sponte
consolidate the appeals.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED [MR. TUSTIN'S CIV.R.