Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 3105
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.80 (2026)

Property division orders involving public retirement program definitions

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
January 7, 2013
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 343 - 129th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

As used in this section and sections 3105.81 to 3105.90 of the Revised Code:

(A) "Alternate payee" means a party in an action for divorce, legal separation, annulment, or dissolution of marriage who is to receive one or more payments from a benefit or lump sum payment under an order issued under section 3105.171 or 3105.65 of the Revised Code that is in compliance with sections 3105.81 to 3105.90 of the Revised Code.

(B) "Benefit" means a periodic payment under a pension, annuity, allowance, or other type of benefit, other than a survivor benefit, that has been or may be granted to a participant under sections 742.01 to 742.61 or Chapter 145., 3307., 3309., or 5505. of the Revised Code or any payment that is to be made under a contract a participant has entered into for the purposes of an alternative retirement plan. "Benefit" also includes all amounts received or to be received under a plan of payment elected under division (E)(1) of section 145.46, division (B) of section 3307.60, or division (B)(4) of section 3309.46 of the Revised Code.

(C) "Lump sum payment" means a payment of accumulated contributions standing to a participant's credit under sections 742.01 to 742.61 or Chapter 145., 3307., 3309., or 5505. of the Revised Code or pursuant to a contract a participant has entered into for the purposes of an alternative retirement plan and any other payment made or that may be made to a participant under those sections or chapters on withdrawal of a participant's contributions. "Lump sum payment" includes a lump sum payment under section 145.384, 742.26, 3307.352, or 3309.344 of the Revised Code.

(D) "Participant" means a member, contributor, retirant, or disability benefit recipient who is or will be entitled to a benefit or lump sum payment under sections 742.01 to 742.61 or Chapter 145., 3307., 3309., or 5505. of the Revised Code or an employee who elects to participate in an alternative retirement plan under Chapter 3305. of the Revised Code.

(E) "Personal history record" has the same meaning as in sections 145.27, 742.41, 3305.20, 3307.20, 3309.22, and 5505.04 of the Revised Code.

(F) "Public retirement program" means the public employees retirement system, Ohio police and fire pension fund, school employees retirement system, state teachers retirement system, state highway patrol retirement system, or an entity providing an alternative retirement plan under Chapter 3305. of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2001–2024 · leading case: Thompson v. Thompson, 965 N.E.2d 377 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Thompson v. Thompson, 965 N.E.2d 377 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2011). “R.C. 3105.80 et seq.; Green v. Green, 10th Dist.”
Erb v. Erb, 747 N.E.2d 230 (Ohio 2001). “” R.C. 3105.80. In addition, H.B. 535 amends R.”
Fischbach v. Mercuri, 919 N.E.2d 804 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2009). · cites it 7× “{¶ 35} The Seventh District noted that new statutes, R.C. 3105.80 et seq., were enacted effective January 1, 2002, and would allow ex-spouses to collect benefits without the application of principles of equity.”
Patterson v. Patterson, 784 N.E.2d 1213 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 2003). · cites it 2× “535, which have been codified at R.C. 3105.80 et seq., because it found that “[t]he provisions of House Bill 535 are not equivalent to the protections offered by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order.”
Hines v. Hines, 2010-Ohio-4807. “He is not asking the trial court to modify 2 R.C. 3105.80 et. seq. pertain to property division orders involving public retirement programs.”
Harris v. Reedus, 2015-Ohio-4962, 50 N.E.3d 1036. “At the hearing on the motion, appellant explained that she misunderstood how she would be receiving her marital share of her ex-husband's OPERS benefits.”
Gantous v. Basing, 2024-Ohio-1112. · cites it 2× “171(F) in making a distributive award, specifically as to equitably dividing the marital portion of the parties’ OPERS accounts by an in-kind 50%-50% division pursuant to a division of property order (“DOPO”), R.C. 3105.80 et. seq. {¶3} After a careful review of the record and…”
Casner v. Casner, 2018-Ohio-5078, 126 N.E.3d 302. “In the "dollar amount" method of payment, the monthly amount that the alternate payee is to receive from the participant's benefit is entered in Paragraph (II)(B)(1)(a).”
Korfhage v. Fitzgerald, 2023-Ohio-744. “Analysis {¶ 16} In his sole assignment of error, appellant argues that the retirement plan at issue is a public retirement program account and must be divided only pursuant to a Division of Property Order (“DOPO”), as provided under R.C. 3105.80 et seq., as opposed to a QDRO…”
Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 2024-Ohio-5419. “In challenging the QDRO on appeal, appellant argued reversible error in journalizing a QDRO rather than a division of property order (DOPO) under R.C. 3105.80 et seq. and further argued that the QDRO was inconsistent with the divorce decree.”
Morgan v. Morgan, 2016-Ohio-104. “On May 20, 2013, the court docketed notice from the OPFPF accepting the DOPO and its determination “that the [DOPO] meets the requirements of the Ohio Revised Codes Sections 3105.80 to 3105.90.” {¶3} On June 30, 2014, 13 months after the OPFPF accepted the DOPO, Melvin filed a…”
Murphy-Kesling v. Kesling, 2014-Ohio-1816. “{¶7} In Wilson, the Ohio Supreme Court explained that a qualified domestic relations order “implements a trial court’s decision of how a pension is to be divided incident to divorce or dissolution.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
Ohio Rev. Code § 3105.80(F): 1 case
Fischbach v. Mercuri, 919 N.E.2d 804 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2009). “{¶ 35} The Seventh District noted that new statutes, R.C. 3105.80 et seq., were enacted effective January 1, 2002, and would allow ex-spouses to collect benefits without the application of principles of equity.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.