Ganz v. Ganz ( 2012 )

[Cite as Ganz v. Ganz, 2012-Ohio-510.]
COURT OF APPEALS
TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
SUSAN GANZ JUDGES:
Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellant Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
Hon. John W. Wise, J.
-vs-
THOMAS GANZ Case No. 2011AP070028
Defendant-Appellee OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Case No. 2010TM020094
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: February 9, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendant-Appellee
JOSEPH I. TRIPODI J. KEVIN LUNDHOLM
114 East High Avenue 405 Chauncey Avenue, NW
New Philadelphia, OH 44663 P.O. Box 668
New Philadelphia, OH 44663
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2011AP070028 2
Farmer, J.
{¶1} On June 18, 1991, appellant, Susan Ganz, and appellee, Thomas Ganz,
were married. On February 25, 2010, appellant filed a complaint for divorce. A hearing
before a magistrate was held on November 4, 2010. By decision filed January 27,
2011, the magistrate recommended a division of assets which included the parties'
retirement benefits. Appellee filed objections. A hearing was held on May 23, 2011. By
judgment entry filed June 23, 2011, the trial court granted in part the objections
pertaining to the division of the retirement benefits. A final order was filed on June 29,
2011.
{¶2} Appellant filed an appeal on July 5, 2011 and assigned the following
errors:
I
{¶3} "THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ITS CALCULATION
OF THE APPELLEE’S MARITAL PORTION OF HIS PRUDENTIAL ANNUITY AND
APPELLEE’S OTHER RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS CAUSING APPELLANT TO LOSE
THE BENEFIT OF R.C. 3105.171(A), 3(a), (i), AND R.C. 3105.171(B)."
II
{¶4} "THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT ‘DIVIDED’
APPELLANT’S SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFIT AS PART OF ITS ORDER OF
PROPERTY DISTRIBUTION IN CONTRAVENTION OF R.C. 3105.171(B) AND R.C.
3105.171(F)(9)."
{¶5} Appellee filed a cross-appeal on July 22, 2011 and assigned the following
error:
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2011AP070028 3
CROSS-ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
{¶6} "THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN NOT ALLOWING
APPELLEE TO PURCHASE THE MARITAL HOME AT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE."
I
{¶7} Appellant claims the trial court abused its discretion in calculating the
marital portion of appellee's retirement accounts. We disagree.
{¶8} In her decision filed January 27, 2011, the magistrate found the following
in pertinent part relevant to retirement benefits:
{¶9} "10. Susan Ganz has an IRA with a fair market value of approximately
$46,684.93, all of which is marital. She consents to the value of her IRA being offset
against the value of Thomas Ganz's pension.
{¶10} "11. Thomas Ganz retired in July of 2006. When he retired, he took a
lump sum benefit and put it all in the Prudential account. His 401K also was deposited
into the Prudential account.***The marital value of that account, according to Pension
Evaluators' letter of 12/21/10, is $310,556.85.***
{¶11} "12. As of the date of hearing, Susan Ganz had approximately $11,000.00
left of her lump sum Social Security Disability remaining. She argues that the Social
Security Disability benefit is separate property. The Magistrate finds that as it is to
replace lost wages, it is marital property.
{¶12} "13. The total combined marital retirement benefits of the parties is
$357,241.78."
{¶13} The magistrate recommended the following division of the parties'
retirement benefits:
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2011AP070028 4
{¶14} "7. The combined marital portion of the retirement benefits should be
divided equally. Each party is entitled to $178,620.89. Susan Ganz should retain all of
her IRA, plus the remaining $11,000.00 of the lump sum Social Security Disability
benefit. These amounts total $57,684.93. The balance owed to her should be paid in a
lump sum from the Prudential account.***"
{¶15} In its June 23, 2011 judgment entry granting appellee’s objections in part,
the trial court found the following:
{¶16} "FINDS that upon review of the record and the transcript of the 11/4/2010
hearing before the Magistrate, at the time of the hearing Thomas Ganz’s Prudential
Retirement Annuity was worth approximately $313,572.40. According to Pension
Evaluators' letter of 12/21/2010, 64.2670% of the value of that account is marital
property. Therefore, the marital value of the Prudential Account at the time of the
hearing was approximately $201,523.57."
{¶17} The trial court then concluded the following:
{¶18} "ORDERED that Recommendation No. 7 shall be rejected. The
combined marital portion of the retirement benefits and the remaining Social Security
Disability benefit shall be divided equally. Each party is entitled to $129,604.25. Susan
Ganz shall retain all of her IRA, plus the remaining $11,000.00 of the lump sum Social
Security Disability benefit. These amounts total $57,684.93. The balance owed to her
in the amount of $71,919.32 should be paid in a lump sum from the Prudential
account.***"
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2011AP070028 5
{¶19} Appellant argues the trial court miscalculated the combined marital portion
of appellee's retirement benefits and then improperly reduced it, in effect giving appellee
a double deduction.
{¶20} During the November 4, 2010 magistrate's hearing, the parties agreed
they would all benefit from an evaluation of appellee's 401K by Pension Evaluators. T.
at 155-156. Pension Evaluators submitted an evaluation on December 21, 2010. See,
Appendix One, Appellant's Reply brief filed October 25, 2011. Pension Evaluators
determined the total value of the retirement funds (lump sum and 401K) at the time of
appellee's retirement in 2006 to be worth $483,229.19. Pension Evaluators determined
the marital portion of the 2006 amount to be 64.267% or $310,556.85. However, by the
time of the magistrate's hearing, the total retirement funds in the Prudential account
equaled $313,572.40. See, Defendant's Exhibit F. The trial court took this figure and
applied the 64.267% and determined appellee's marital portion of the remaining
retirement funds to be $201,523.57 as opposed to the magistrate's $310,556.85.
{¶21} We agree with the trial court's calculations regarding appellee's retirement
funds. Appellant was not entitled to benefit from the 2006 amounts, as the retirement
funds were reduced by expenditures for living expenses during the marriage (2006-
2010) and market performance.
{¶22} Upon review, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
calculating the marital portion of appellee's retirement funds.
{¶23} Assignment of Error I is denied.
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2011AP070028 6
II
{¶24} Appellant claims the trial court abused its discretion in dividing her social
security benefit as part of the property distribution in violation of R.C. 3105.171. We
disagree.
{¶25} As cited supra, the trial court determined appellant's "remaining Social
Security Disability benefit [$11,000.00] should be divided equally." See, Judgment
Entry filed June 23, 2011.
{¶26} Appellant argues the trial court erred in dividing the remaining social
security disability benefit in violation of R.C. 3105.171(B) and (F)(9) which excludes
social security benefits unless one of the parties has accumulated a public pension.
Neither party in this case has accumulated a public pension.
{¶27} Appellant testified the $35,983.00 lump sum award she received from
social security was for disability. T. at 18-19; Plaintiff's Exhibit 3. She agreed the award
was to replace the income she was unable to earn during the time of her disability which
was during the marriage. T. at 53. Appellant's social security disability payment was in
lieu of wages she would have earned during the marriage and therefore constitutes
marital property. Henderhan v. Henderhan, Stark App. No. 2001CA00330, 2002-Ohio-
2674.
{¶28} Upon review, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dividing
appellant's social security disability award.
{¶29} Assignment of Error II is denied.
Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2011AP070028 7
CROSS-ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
{¶30} Appellee claims the trial court erred in not allowing him to purchase the
marital home at the fair market value.
{¶31} By stipulation filed with this court on January 19, 2012, the parties agreed
that appellee "shall be given 30 days to refinance the marital home into his name only,
removing Appellant Susan Ganz from any liability on the current loan. Susan Ganz
agrees to cooperate in the refinancing process, including signing a Quit Claim Deed to
Thomas Ganz."
{¶32} Based upon this stipulation, this cross-assignment of error is denied.
{¶33} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County, Ohio
is hereby affirmed.
By Farmer, J.
Hoffman, P.J. and
Wise, J. concur.
_s/ Sheila G. Farmer_______________
_s/ William B. Hoffman______________
s/ John W. Wise__________________
JUDGES
SGF/db 0124
[Cite as Ganz v. Ganz, 2012-Ohio-510.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
SUSAN GANZ :
:
Plaintiff-Appellant :
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
THOMAS GANZ :
:
Defendant-Appellee : CASE NO. 2011AP070028
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the
judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County, Ohio is affirmed.
Costs to appellant.
s/ Sheila G. Farmer_______________
_s/ William B. Hoffman______________
_s/ John W. Wise__________________
JUDGES