Manning v. Jusak , 2013 Ohio 4194 ( 2013 )

[Cite as Manning v. Jusak, 2013-Ohio-4194.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 99459
ELLEN MANNING
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
vs.
JAMES A. JUSAK
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Civil Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Domestic Relations Division
Case No. D-300688
BEFORE: Stewart, A.J., Rocco, J., and E.T. Gallagher, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: September 26, 2013
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Joyce E. Barrett
800 Standard Building
1370 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44113
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Mark R. Gusley
Mark R. Gusley & Associates Co., L.P.A.
6600 Park Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44105
Lanene M. Meslat
Lanene M. Meslat Co., L.P.A.
27070 Detroit Road, Suite 102
Westlake, OH 44145
MELODY J. STEWART, A.J.:
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Ellen Manning and defendant-appellee James Jusak were
divorced in 2006 according to the terms of a settlement agreement that made no specific
mention of Jusak’s pension plan. In 2011, Manning filed a motion asking the court to
issue a qualified domestic relations order (“QDRO”) dividing the proceeds of that plan
between the parties. Jusak opposed the motion on grounds that the parties expressly
excluded mention of his pension plan in the separation agreement because the spousal
support order they agreed to specifically stated that it was based in part on each party
receiving an equal share of the parties’ retirement benefits, including the proceeds from
the pension. A magistrate denied Manning’s motion, and the court approved and
adopted the magistrate’s decision. Manning now appeals arguing that the trial court
erred by denying her motion to divide Jusak’s pension plan and by denying her motion for
attorney fees.
{¶2} The parties approach the issue on appeal from very different perspectives.
Manning argues that under Bisker v. Bisker, 69 Ohio St.3d 608, 635 N.E.2d 308 (1994),
the pension plan was a marital asset that had to be considered in arriving at an equitable
division of marital property, regardless of whether the parties were basing the amount of
spousal support on the value of the plan. Jusak argues that Manning forfeited the right to
raise any issue relating to the pension plan by neglecting to file a direct appeal from the
divorce decree and waiting nearly five years to raise the issue. He also notes that he had
been retired and collecting pension benefits at the time of the divorce, so the parties were
well aware of the existence of the pension plan at the time they entered into the separation
agreement. Finally, he claims that Manning’s argument would, if accepted, allow the
court to modify the terms of the separation agreement even though the parties did not give
the court continuing jurisdiction to do so.
I
{¶3} The separation agreement incorporated into the divorce decree stated that
Jusak would pay Manning the sum of $786.62 for spousal support. That amount
represented “one-half (½) of the parties’ total income from Social Security and retirement
benefits divided by two (2).” Before the parties entered into their separation agreement,
they stipulated that Jusak was collecting pension benefits of approximately $1,364.58 per
month and Social Security benefits of approximately $1,276 per month.
{¶4} The magistrate’s decision stated:
The magistrate specifically requested final arguments to be structured
regarding whether Plaintiff’s motion seeks the court to modify the property
division entered into by the parties and adopted by the court. R.C.
3105.171(I) states: “[A] division or distribution of property or a
distributive award made under this section is not subject to future
modification by the courts.” Defendant’s final argument is on point.
Plaintiff’s final argument continues to frame the issues as: “[T]he court is
faced with the parties’ failure to divide, as an asset subject to inclusion in
the division of property, defendant’s interest in the G.M. Salaried
Retirement Program Pension Plan.” (Emphasis sic.)
II
{¶5} In Bisker, the Supreme Court held that a divorce decree that failed to account
for a husband’s retirement benefits was incorrect as a matter of law because “a vested
pension plan accumulated during marriage is a marital asset that must be considered in
arriving at an equitable division of property.” Id. at 609, citing Holcomb v. Holcomb, 44
Ohio St.3d 128, 541 N.E.2d 597 (1989); R.C. 3105.18 [now R.C. 3105.171]. The parties
in Bisker twice divorced, the first time by separation agreement, the second time by trial.
Both times they failed to mention the husband’s pension benefits and in neither case did
the division of marital assets take those pension benefits into account. On direct appeal
from the second divorce, the Supreme Court noted that “[t]he record does not indicate
that the trial court, at any juncture of the current proceedings, ever reviewed the
retirement benefits of the parties * * *.” Id.{¶6} This case is distinguishable from Bisker because the record shows that the
court did consider Jusak’s pension benefits when reducing the terms of the parties’
separation agreement to judgment. The parties agreed that Jusak’s pension was to be the
baseline for calculating Manning’s spousal support. That being so, those pension
benefits were implicitly awarded to Jusak as part of the division of marital assets because
they were the means by which he could afford to pay spousal support. So this is not a
case like Bisker where the court failed to consider whether a party’s pension benefits
should be divided as a marital asset.
III
{¶7} To the extent that Manning argues that the court erred by failing to include
Jusak’s pension plan as part of the marital assets to be divided regardless of what the
parties intended in their separation agreement, that issue is res judicata because she did
not file a direct appeal challenging the divorce decree. Principles of res judicata apply
both to issues that were actually litigated and adjudicated in a divorce action and also to
matters that could have been litigated and adjudicated. Bean v. Bean, 14 Ohio App.3d
358, 361, 471 N.E.2d 785 (12th Dist.1983). Res judicata applies to foreclose a party
from relitigating the division of marital assets. See Westhoven v. Westhoven, 6th Dist.
Ottawa No. OT-10-037, 2011-Ohio-3610, ¶ 15. Manning was obligated to raise any
issue relating to the division of marital assets on direct appeal. Having failed to do so,
she cannot now relitigate the issue some five years after the fact.
{¶8} Finally, apart from any issue of res judicata, we find that Manning invited the
error she now claims.
{¶9} The invited error doctrine states that “a party is not entitled to take advantage
of an error that he himself invited or induced.” State ex rel. Kline v. Carroll, 96 Ohio
St.3d 404, 2002-Ohio-4849, 775 N.E.2d 517; State v. Smith, 148 Ohio App.3d 274,
2002-Ohio-3114, 772 N.E.2d 1225, ¶ 30 (8th Dist.)
{¶10} Manning agreed that Jusak’s pension plan would be part of the basis for
funding her spousal support. That conclusion is undeniable given that the separation
agreement specifically stated that the spousal support of $786.62 represented “one-half
(½) of the parties’ total income from Social Security and retirement benefits divided by
two (2).” (Emphasis added.) The parties specifically included other retirement benefits
in their division of marital assets, so Jusak’s pension was the obvious source from which
he could pay Manning’s spousal support. Having induced the court to enter judgment in
accordance with the terms of a separation agreement that funded spousal support with the
pension plan, Manning cannot be heard to complain that the court did not divide that
pension as marital property.
{¶11} In reaching these conclusions, we reject Manning’s argument that by not
dividing the pension as a marital asset, the court has created a windfall for Jusak because
the amount of spousal support does not increase even if Jusak’s pension receives any cost
of living or other adjustment. The parties agreed that “[a]ny increase or decrease in the
parties’ total income from any sources of ten percent (10%) or more shall constitute a
change in circumstances for a modification” of spousal support. This statement clearly
indicates that the parties factored into the agreement a potential increase in Jusak’s
pension.
{¶12} Our affirmance of the court’s refusal to issue the qualified domestic
relations order causes us to reject Manning’s argument that the court erred by failing to
award her attorney fees expended in prosecuting the motion. “[N]on-prevailing parties
are generally precluded from recovering attorney fees and litigation expenses.” Adams v.
Adams, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-13-01, 2013-Ohio-2947, fn. 2, citing Hubbard v. Hubbard,
3d Dist. Hancock No. 4-08-37, 2009-Ohio-2194, ¶ 11.
{¶13} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant his costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Cuyahoga
County Court of Common Pleas — Domestic Relations Division to carry this judgment
into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of
the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
MELODY J. STEWART, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., and
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR