 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gulitz v. Gulitz4/30/1998
marital assets.
The Magistrate held that unlike the case law presented by defendant-appellant in support of his position, there was no risk of losing his pension in the future funds. Therefore, defendant- appellant's decision to participate in the program was completely voluntary. More importantly was the fact that the decision to retire early and take advantage of the V.T.P. benefits occurred during the marriage. The parties were divorced approximately three years afterthe funds were deposited into an account. Finally, the Magistrate held that after a review of all the evidence, there existed no circumstance which would justify a large discrepancy in the division of retirement savings of the parties.
In the opinion which was later adopted by the trial court, the Magistrate cites to case law which stand for the proposition that early retirement incentives paid as a result of years of service were assets accumulated during the marriage and subject to the division of marital property. See, e.g., Von Der Embse v. Von Der Embse (March 25, 1992), Montgomery App. No. 91 CA 47, unreported; Woolum v. Woolum (June 28, 1993), Clermont App. No. CA92-12-116, unreported.
We find this case law applicable to the present matter. More importantly, we find the opinion of the Magistrate to be well reasoned and based upon facts present in the record. It is clear the Magistrate considered the circumstances of the case, the status of the parties, the nature, terms and conditions of the pension or retirement plan, and the reasonableness of the result. Hoyt, supra. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that the trial court acted unreasonably, arbitrarily or unconscionably in adopting the Magistrate's opinion. Accordingly, defendant-appellant's sole assignment of error is not well taken.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant her 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 Common Pleas Court 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.
TIMOTHY MCMONAGLE, PRESIDING JUDGE
JAMES D. SWEENEY, JUDGE
MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, JUDGE
|