Dilley v. Dilley , 2017 Ohio 4046 ( 2017 )

[Cite as Dilley v. Dilley, 2017-Ohio-4046.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
GEAUGA COUNTY, OHIO
WILLIAM DILLEY, : OPINION
Plaintiff-Appellant, :
CASE NO. 2016-G-0078
- vs - :
TATIANA DILLEY, :
Defendant-Appellee. :
Civil appeal from the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas.
Case No. 08 DC 000591.
Judgment: Affirmed.
William Dilley, pro se, 11720 Regent Park Drive, Chardon, OH 44024 (Plaintiff-
Appellant).
Heidi M. Cisan, Thrasher, Dinsmore & Dolan Co., L.P.A., 100 Seventh Avenue, Suite
150, Chardon, OH 44024-1079 (For Defendant-Appellee).
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J.
{¶1} Appellant, William Dilley, appeals from the May 27, 2016 judgment of the
Geauga County Court of Common Pleas, approving appellee, Tatiana Dilley’s,
proposed qualified domestic relations orders (“QDRO”) filed May 13, 2016. For the
following reasons, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
{¶2} Appellant filed for divorce in May 2008. On March 10, 2010, the trial court
entered a final judgment of divorce. The matter has been subject to numerous appeals
and post-decree motions. See Dilley v. Dilley, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2014-G-3227,
2015-Ohio-1872; Dilley v. Dilley, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2012-G-3109, 2013-Ohio-4095;
Dilley v. Dilley, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2012-G-3091, 2013-Ohio-994; Dilley v. Dilley,
11th Dist. Geauga No. 2011-G-3030, 2011-Ohio-5863. See Dilley v. Dilley, 11th Dist.
Geauga No. 2010-G-2957, 2011-Ohio-2093.
{¶3} The issues presented in the current appeal originated with the trial court’s
September 26, 2014 judgment entry, adopting the magistrate’s June 9, 2014 decision,
which addressed multiple pending motions. Appellant appealed from the September
26, 2014 judgment, which this court affirmed in Dilley, 2015-Ohio-1872, supra.
{¶4} Part of the September 26, 2014 judgment entry ordered appellee to file
proposed QDROs, ordering payment of the following: (1) $19,243.59 owed to appellee
from the Citigroup Cash Balance Plan; (2) the spousal support arrearage due and owing
through September 26, 2014, according to Geauga County Child Support Enforcement
Division; (3) $9,167.92 in prior unpaid attorney’s fees; (4) $1,302 in attorney’s fees for
the Motion to Show Cause filed June 10, 2013; and (5) 100% of the balance of the
Citigroup 401(k) account, half of which was previously awarded to appellee. The
remaining half was to be credited toward appellant’s obligations as set forth herein.
{¶5} On October 23, 2015, appellee submitted three proposed QDROs
awarding her (1) 100% of appellant’s interest in the Citigroup 401(k) plan; (2) 100% of
appellant’s interest in the Citigroup Pension Plan Shearson Benefit; and (3) 100% of
appellant’s interest in the Citigroup Pension Plan Account-Based Benefit. Appellant
objected on November 3, 2015.
2
{¶6} On November 24, 2015, the trial court approved the QDRO awarding
appellee 100% of appellant’s interest in the Citigroup 401(k) plan and ordered that it
should be executed. The court was unable to determine whether the remaining QDROs
complied with its September 26, 2014 judgment entry and ordered the parties to submit
information relevant to that issue. Appellant filed a brief in support of his position with
the trial court on December 1, 2015. On May 13, 2016, appellee filed her response and
submitted two QDROs. On May 20, 2016, appellant filed a reply to appellee’s response
and also a motion to modify spousal support.
{¶7} On May 27, 2016, the trial court entered judgment, approving appellee’s
proposed QDROs filed May 13, 2016. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from that
judgment.
{¶8} On appeal, appellant asserts four assignments of error:
[1.] The trial court erred and abused its discretion in ordering a
100% garnishment of the Appellant’s Social Security benefits,
Shearson Pension Plan, Citi Pension Plan, and 401K Plan in
violation of the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act and State
law; and against the manifest weight of the evidence.
[2.] The Trial Court erred and abused the discretion by not hearing
argument’s [sic] or granting a hearing in Appellant’s Motion to
Modify Spousal Support as there was pertinent or relative evidence,
fact and law on behalf of the Appellant.
[3.] The trial court erred and abused its discretion by finding an
arrearages of $102,000 when there was no evidence presented or
otherwise in the record upon which to base such a decision, and by
ordering the Appellant to pay arrearage by full garnishment of the
Appellant’s Citi Pension Plan in addition to other substantial
monthly spousal support payments; and is against the manifest
weight of the evidence.
[4.] The Trial Court erred and abused its discretion by not granting
Appellant’s Motion for Modification of Spousal Support despite the
3
manifest weight of the evidence, fact and law supporting a
modification reducing or vacating spousal support.
{¶9} Appellee did not file an appellate brief.
{¶10} The arguments appellant presents under his assignments of error do not
pertain to the trial court’s May 27, 2016 judgment and, instead, raise issues that have
been decided by the trial court in previous judgments. In his first assignment of error,
appellant takes issue with the trial court’s determination of spousal support and
arrearages, which were determined in previous judgment entries. In his second and
fourth assignments of error, appellant appears to raise issues regarding a July 2, 2013
motion to modify spousal support, which the trial court denied in its September 26, 2014
judgment entry. In his third assignment of error, appellant takes issue with the amount
of arrearages the trial court found in its September 26, 2014 judgment entry.
{¶11} All of these arguments are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
{¶12} Under the doctrine of res judicata, “a valid, final judgment rendered upon
the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the
transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action.” Grava v.
Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 382 (1995). Res judicata prevents “relitigation of
issues already decided by a court or matters that should have been brought as part of a
previous action.” Lasko v. General Motors Corp., 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2002-T-0143,
2003-Ohio-4103, ¶16. Because the issues appellant now raises on appeal could have
been raised or were raised in previous appeals and affirmed, he is barred from
presenting those arguments in the present appeal from the trial court’s May 27, 2016
judgment.
4
{¶13} Appellant contends that his arguments are not barred by res judicata;
however, he has not cited to any relevant law in support of his position. See App.R.
16(A)(7); see also Harris v. Nome, 9th Dist. Summit No. 21071, 2002-Ohio-6994, ¶14,
citing App.R. 16(A)(7) (“[T]he brief of an appellant must contain argument and law, with
citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record on which the appellant
relies.”).
{¶14} Appellant’s assignments of error are without merit.
{¶15} The judgment of the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, P.J.,
DIANE V. GRENDELL, J.,
concur.
5