Himes v. Himes

In Himes v. Himes, Tuscarawas App. No. 2004-AP-020009, 2004 Ohio 4666, the court of appeals held that where a QDRO differs from the separation agreement which provided for property division, the QDRO is void ab initio and can be vacated by the court in accordance with its inherent authority. Thus, the court held the motion to vacate the QDRO does not have to comply with the general requirement of Civ.R. 60(B) motions and is void where in conflict with the terms of the separation agreement. The Fifth District in Himes cited with approval the Sixth District's earlier opinion in Doolin v. Doolin (1997), 123 Ohio App.3d 296, 704 N.E.2d 51.