 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gulitz v. Gulitz4/30/1998
JUDGMENT Affirmed.
PER CURIAM
This cause came to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.R. 25, the record from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, and the briefs of the parties. On June 8, 1968, plaintiff-appellee, Sandra Gulitz, married defendant- appellant, Frank Gulitz. Two children were born as issue of the marriage, both of whom are emancipated. Both parties were employed during their marriage.
Since August 15, 1969, defendant-appellant has been working with Centerior Energy Corporation (formerly the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.). During the summer of 1993, defendant-appellant was informed that he was eligible for Centerior's newly offered Voluntary Transition Program ( V.T.P. ). This program was an early retirement incentive program designed to induce qualified employees to accept the offer in order to reduce the company's operating costs. According to the company's pension administrator, the V.T.P. payments were not considered severance pay.
In 1993, defendant-appellant participated in the plan and received a lump-sum payment of $270,588.99 which was deposited in a separate account in his name only. Defendant-appellant treated the lump sum V.T.P. payment as a non-taxable pension distribution on his Federal Income Tax return for the year 1993.
On January 10, 1996, plaintiff-appellee filed for divorce . The Court subsequently found that the termination date of the marriage was September 24, 1996 for purposes of dividing marital property. The parties stipulated that on that date, the V.T.P. benefits had accumulated to $346,700 without any additional deposits or withdrawals.
At the hearing, the parties entered into a partial separation and property agreement. There was an equal division of funds except for the V.T.P. benefits. Since the parties continued to disagree on the characterization of the V.T.P. benefits for purposes of dividing marital assets/property, the issue was submitted to the Magistrate for determination. On June 4, 1997, the Magistrate held the entire V.T.P. benefit was a martial asset subject to equal division between the parties.
On June 17, 1997, defendant-appellant timely filed his objections to the Magistrate's decision. On September 15, 1997, the trial court overruled the objections and adopted the Magistrate's decision. The trial court entered a Judgment Entry of Divorce on October 14, 1997. Defendant-appellant timely filed this appeal.
Defendant-appellant's sole assignment of error states:
THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ENTIRE CENTERIOR ENERGY CORPORATION VOLUNTARY TRANSITION PROGRAM (VTP), AN EARLY RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PAYMENT TO APPELLANT, WAS A MARITAL ASSET.
Defendant-appellant argues the trial court erred in failing to recognize the distinct components of the V.T.P. plan. Defendant- appellant acknowledges that a portion of the package represented his regular pension and constitutes marital property. However, another portion of the V.T.P. plan was an enhancement created to induce the employee to leave early. Stated differently, that portion is compensation for the loss of future earnings.
Regardless of the fact that defendant-appellant acquired the V.T.P. plan during his marriage, he argues the enhancement portion of the package constitutes separate property and belongs to defendant-appellant. For these reasons, defendant-appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion in adopting the Magistrate's decision. We do not find defendant-appellant's contentions persuasive.
The division of marital property is governed by statute. R.C. 3105.171 de
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|