COLUMBUS, Ohio — Some benefits former military members receive are considered property that should be divided between spouses upon divorce, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

        The decision reversed an appeals court ruling and reinstated a trial court's order that an Akron woman should get part of the $6,566 her ex-husband, a 15-year U.S. Air Force veteran, receives annually from the military.

        Justice Alice Robie Resnick wrote in the majority opinion that the Summit County Court of Common Pleas correctly found that as part of a divorce settlement, Caroline Mackey should have received part of Randy Mackey's benefits, which were accrued during the time the two were married.

        “Therefore, it is only reasonable that the portion of benefits earned during the marriage would be divisible between the parties upon divorce,” she wrote.

        The Mackeys were married in 1989 in England, where he was stationed and where she was a citizen.

        After their two children were born, Randy Mackey decided to leave the Air Force in 1992 to move his family to Akron. He accepted a buyout under the Voluntary Separation Incentive enacted to encourage the military to downsize.

        The couple divorced in 1999, and the trial court ruled that Caroline Mackey was entitled to 24 percent of her ex-husband's VSI benefits because they had been married for 42 of the 175 months he spent in the Air Force.

        Randy Mackey appealed and the 9th Ohio District Court of Appeals sided with him, saying those benefits were not marital property.

        The Supreme Court disagreed, likening benefits paid by both military programs to retirement benefits, which state law considers marital property subject to division upon divorce.

        “The reason this isn't a retirement benefit is because it's not something you earn and have a right to,” said Michael Partlow, an attorney for Randy Mackey.

        Justices Deborah L. Cook and Evelyn Lundberg Stratton agreed with the majority's conclusion that the benefits were similar to retirement but disagreed with the majority's reinstatement of the trial court's ruling.

        Justice Cook wrote in a separate opinion that the justices should have returned the case to the appeals court so it could consider Randy Mackey's claim that the trial court erred in determining how much his ex-wife should receive.

        An attorney for Caroline Mackey did not return phone messages seeking comment.

Ali lends star power to Freedom Center
CAN to assist in clearing records
Chamber link spans distances
Blue Ash leader sees chance of airport deal
Action against bar won't be accelerated
Death-by-bleach case up to jury
Hospital delays elective surgeries
Israeli mayor saddened, determined
Judge: House addition can be razed
Second Goettafest to span 2 days
Obituary: Dr. 'Pat' Sferra, 74, taught at Mount St. Joe
School still on schedule
Schools' proposed budget growing
Settlement gets one last hearing
Tristate A.M. Report
Visitors bureau funds may shift
Volunteer chosen to throw first pitch
PULFER: The graduates
RADEL: Hear the customer
$1 is all it takes to attend LeSourdsville Lake opening
Hamilton stop on rail route is urged
Sex-with-minor case is 2nd for man
DeWine: Check legal barriers in 9-11 failure
Fishing pier by plant reopens
Forum slated on rate changes
Judge orders Ohioan to Tenn.
Layoffs coming for OSU staffers
Ohio court says ex-spouse has claim on military benefit
Taft approves budget bill
Taft's office shares role in cost of ads
Voinovich to boycott hearing because of witness
Abuse of meth climbing quickly
Bishop kept mum on abuse
Kentucky News Briefs
Lawsuits may be sealed
Patton: No special session likely
Schools for deaf, blind faulted