Legal Opinion

Hoyt v. Hoyt

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 29, 1990No. 89-98PublishedCited by 45 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtYoung, J.

This court is presented with an opportunity to develop guidelines for a trial court to follow when exercising its discretion in considering pension or retirement benefits in a divorce. The general rule is that pension or retirement benefits earned during the course of a marriage are marital assets3 and a factor to be considered not only in the division of property,4 but also in relationship to an *179award of alimony.* ***5 However, general rules cannot provide for every contingency and no specific rule can apply in every case.6 The purpose of the guidelines is to provide a fair and equitable…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Blakemore v. BlakemoreOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  2. McCarty v. McCartySupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  3. Cherry v. CherryOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Berish v. BerishOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  5. Koegel v. KoegelOhio Supreme Court · 1982

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by45 opinions

  1. In Re Robert C. McCafferty Debtor. Robert C. McCafferty v. Marion McCaffertyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1996
  2. Ostanek v. Ostanek (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2021
  3. Erb v. ErbOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Neville v. NevilleOhio Supreme Court · 2003
  5. In Re HagemanUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · 2001

40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API