Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed a writ of prohibition preventing a domestic-relations judge from issuing an amended qualified domestic relations order while an appeal from the original order was pending. The court held that the trial judge patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to amend the QDRO because the amendment was inconsistent with the appellate court's jurisdiction to review the original judgment and order.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a domestic-relations judge loses jurisdiction to amend a QDRO when an appeal from the original QDRO and related judgment is pending.
- Whether a writ of prohibition is appropriate to vacate an amended QDRO issued during the pending appeal and prevent further action inconsistent with the appellate court's jurisdiction.
Holdings
- Once an appeal from the original QDRO and related judgment was perfected, Judge Ramsey patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to issue an amended QDRO that modified the original order.
- A writ of prohibition was proper because Judge Ramsey was exercising judicial authority without lawful jurisdiction, and the lack of jurisdiction was patent and unambiguous.
Key quotations
“once an appeal is perfected, the trial court is divested of jurisdiction over matters that are inconsistent with the reviewing court’s jurisdiction to reverse, modify, or affirm the judgment.” (¶ 17)
“A QDRO is merely an order in aid of execution on the property division ordered in the divorce or dissolution decree.” (¶ 19)
“In cases of a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, the requirement of a lack of an adequate remedy of law need not be proven because the availability of alternate remedies like appeal would be immaterial.” (¶ 24)
Factual background
The Lucas County Court of Common Pleas granted Daniel and Janet Sullivan a divorce in 1997 and awarded Janet a portion of Daniel's retirement benefits through a QDRO or separate judgment entry. No QDRO was timely entered, and Daniel later transferred his retirement plan and began receiving the pension without paying Janet her share. In January 2009, Judge Ramsey entered a judgment and QDRO awarding Janet monthly benefits, retroactive benefits, and attorney fees; after Daniel appealed, the judge issued an amended QDRO while the appeal was pending.
Procedural history
The domestic-relations court entered a January 9, 2009 judgment and QDRO awarding Janet Sullivan a portion of Daniel Sullivan's retirement benefits and retroactive benefits. Daniel appealed. While that appeal was pending, Judge Ramsey issued an amended QDRO. Daniel then sought prohibition in the court of appeals, which granted the writ and vacated the amended QDRO. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed.