Chastity Marie Ellison

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
In Re 	)
)
CHASTITY MARIE ELLISON 	) 	Case No. 25-10859
) 	Chapter 13
Debtor(s) 	) 	Judge Buchanan
)
)
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING CREDITOR WAYNE ELLISON LIMITED
RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY [Docket Number 68]
Creditor Wayne Ellison (“Mr. Ellison”) filed a Motion for Relief from Stay [Docket
Number 68] (the “Motion”) requesting that prepetition litigation involving Debtor Chastity Marie
Ellison (“Debtor”) in a state domestic relations court be permitted to continue to a final judgment.
The state court litigation involves an alleged overpayment the Debtor received from Mr. Ellison
pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order or “QDRO”. 1
1 Throughout this decision and order, this Court will use the term QDRO to refer to a qualified domestic relations
order.
This document has been electronically entered in the records of the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 20, 2026
Case 1:25-bk-10859 Doc 142 Filed 05/20/26 Entered 05/20/26 12:36:03 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 13

The Debtor filed an objection [Docket Number 75] to Mr. Ellison’s request for relief from
the stay asserting that the bankruptcy court, rather than the domestic relations court, should
determine whether Mr. Ellison has a claim against her for a QDRO overpayment and its amount.
The Debtor also expressed concern that she would be vulnerable to contempt sanctions in domestic
relations court should litigation continue in that court.
This Court held an evidentiary hearing on February 4 and continued to February 24, 2026.
The evidence presented at the hearing supports that the domestic relations court is the appropriate
forum for making determinations regarding the potential QDRO overpayment. Accordingly, this
Court grants limited relief from the automatic stay to permit the domestic relations court to finally
determine whether the Debtor received a QDRO overpayment from Mr. Ellison and calculate the
amount of any such overpayment. However, the automatic stay remains in effect to prevent Mr.
Ellison from taking action to execute on any judgment that might be rendered in his favor and from
pursuing any contempt sanctions against the Debtor in the domestic relations court.
I. 	FACTS
Mr. Ellison and the Debtor were married on March 29, 2019 [Docket Number 131,
Transcript of February 4, 2026 Evidentiary Hearing (“Tr.”) p. 17]. Their marriage lasted
approximately three years ending on April 15, 2022 [Tr. p. 17]. They filed for divorce in the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, Kenton County Circuit Court, Family Division II (“Domestic
Relations Court”) [Tr. p. 17]. The parties had no children so the main issue to be determined was
the separation of assets and liabilities [Tr. p. 17].
A focal point of the divorce was the appropriate division of funds in Mr. Ellison’s
retirement plan with his employer, Fifth Third Bank [Tr. p. 18]. Mr. Ellison has been employed
with the bank for thirty-one years and had a yearly salary during the marriage of approximately
Case 1:25-bk-10859 Doc 142 Filed 05/20/26 Entered 05/20/26 12:36:03 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 13

$120,000 [Tr. p. 18]. Mr. Ellison testified that he had saved approximately $700,000 - $800,000
in his Fifth Third Bank retirement plan at the time of his marriage [Tr. p. 19].
As part of the divorce, the Domestic Relations Court entered a Qualified Domestic
Relations Order or “QDRO” on January 11, 2023 for the division of the Fifth Third Bank
retirement plan funds [Tr. p. 19 and Creditor Ex. A2 ]. The Debtor and Mr. Ellison were represented
by separate attorneys in the domestic relations case and the QDRO was signed by both the Debtor
and Mr. Ellison as well as their attorneys [Creditor Ex. A].
Pursuant to the QDRO as drafted, the Debtor grossed a total of $163,789.973 as her portion
of Mr. Ellison’s Fifth Third Bank retirement plan [Tr. pp. 23 and 26]. However, the amount Ms.
Ellison actually received was about $120,000 - $129,000 after deductions for taxes and penalties
[Tr. pp. 56-57, 75, 168].
According to Mr. Ellison’s testimony, the amount the Debtor received was significantly
more than intended. He testified that the QDRO was intended to accomplish what the parties
agreed to in mediation and the divorce decree, which was that the Debtor would receive 50% of
what was invested during the three years of their marriage plus any appreciation on her portion of
the marital contributions [Tr. pp. 19 and 25-26]. Mr. Ellison testified that, over the three year span
of their marriage, he invested $63,347.94 into the retirement plan and believed the Debtor would,
thus, be entitled to approximately $31,673.97 plus the growth of that amount during the marriage
[Tr. pp. 21 and 25-26].
2 Creditor Wayne Ellison’s Exhibits A, B, C, D, F, K, L and M were admitted during the evidentiary hearing and may
be found on the record at Docket Number 122.
3 The Debtor testified that the gross amount of the disbursement was only $160,930.30 according to the 1099 she
received from Empower [Tr. pp. 57-58]. For purposes of this Court’s determination, the actual amount, whether
$160,930.30 or $163,789.97, is not relevant.
Case 1:25-bk-10859 Doc 142 Filed 05/20/26 Entered 05/20/26 12:36:03 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 13

However, Mr. Ellison testified that, instead of stating that the Debtor was to receive 50%
of what was invested during the marriage, the QDRO stated that the Debtor was to receive 50% of
what was vested during the marriage [Tr. at pp. 19-20]. He testified that this error amounted to a
“huge difference” by awarding the Debtor half of the accumulated growth in the account during
the three year period of their marriage [Tr. pp. 20-22]. During the marriage, he thought the account
grew by roughly $330,000 [Tr. p. 19].
Mr. Ellison admitted that he received a draft of the QDRO that did not include a fixed
dollar amount or a tracing calculation [Tr. p. 50]. He further admitted that he did not object to the
draft QDRO even though the specific dollar amount was absent from the language [Tr. p. 50]. Mr.
Ellison’s claim that the Debtor received more than she was entitled to came only after the funds
were distributed [Tr. p. 51].
The Debtor testified that her understanding was that she would receive 50% of everything
that happened in the retirement fund during the marriage, including bonuses and “anything else.”
[Tr. p. 55]. She testified to her reliance on the QDRO and her belief that the amount she received
was correctly determined to be half of the retirement funds that were contributed during the
marriage [Tr. pp. 58-59].
Upon receiving the retirement funds, both parties agree that the Debtor quickly liquidated
the account and began spending the funds [Tr. pp. 34, 37-38, 67, 75-77, 83-84]. The Debtor
testified that her expenditures during the initial ten-day period after receiving the funds included
purchasing a vehicle for approximately $26,000 or $27,000 and also paying ordinary living
expenses, including rent, legal fees and credit card bills [Tr. pp. 75-77, 83-84, 140-41, 148]. While
she could not fully account for the funds she spent in the approximate amount of $48,000 over the
Case 1:25-bk-10859 Doc 142 Filed 05/20/26 Entered 05/20/26 12:36:03 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 13

initial ten-day period after receiving the funds, she stated she was confident she could trace the
spending if given time [Tr. pp. 86-88].
On February 14, 2023, Mr. Ellison filed an emergency motion in the Domestic Relations
Court to freeze the account containing the funds transferred to the Debtor [Creditor Ex. B]. In the
emergency motion, Mr. Ellison asserted that a mistake in the QDRO drafting and division caused
the Debtor to receive more funds than she was entitled to receive from Mr. Ellison’s retirement
plan. He requested that the Domestic Relations Court freeze the Debtor’s account on an emergency
basis to restrain her spending or disposing of the funds until such time as an evidentiary hearing
could be held to determine whether she received an overpayment. The Domestic Relations Court
entered an order on February 15, 2023 freezing the assets and scheduling a hearing [Creditor Ex.
C].
Upon that order being entered, the Debtor testified that she turned over what remained in
her account [Tr. p. 88]. The parties agree that the amount turned over was approximately
$79,759.78 [Tr. pp. 37-38, 79, 135].
Following an evidentiary hearing that occurred over three days in April and June of 2023,
the Domestic Relations Court entered an order in July of 2023 with detailed findings of fact
regarding the language of the QDRO and what led to its entry [Creditor Ex. D (“July 2023
Order”)]. The Domestic Relations Court concluded that the QDRO contained errors that did not
comply with the parties’ separation agreement that became part of the final decree of dissolution.
It determined that the $163,789.97 deducted from Mr. Ellison’s retirement plan and transferred to
the Debtor was more than what she was entitled to receive based on the parties’ separation
agreement and that she was unjustly enriched. Accordingly, the Domestic Relations Court
determined that the QDRO was an error and set it aside nunc pro tunc. The Domestic Relations
Case 1:25-bk-10859 Doc 142 Filed 05/20/26 Entered 05/20/26 12:36:03 Desc Main
Document Page 5 of 13

Court directed the parties to agree to an expert to calculate the value of Mr. Ellison’s non-marital
interest and his marital interest in his retirement plan and determine the appreciation in value for
both portions. After completing the valuation, Mr. Ellison was to be entitled to a “Lump Sum
Judgment” in the “amount of the difference between fifty percent (50%) of the marital portion
which the [Debtor] should have received and the amount that was transferred by QDRO to the
[Debtor]” [Creditor Ex. D, p. 13]. To effectuate the Lump Sum Judgment, the balance of
$79,759.78 held by counsel for the parties in escrow was to be transferred to Mr. Ellison’s counsel
within ten days of the entry of the order [Id.].
Ms. Ellison testified that she appealed the July 2023 Order setting aside the QDRO but the
appeals court determined that the order was not a final order [Tr. pp. 137-38]. As of the hearing
date in this Court, $79,759.78 remains frozen and is being held in escrow by Mr. Ellison’s current
domestic relations lawyer, Jackie Sawyers [Tr. p. 34]. Mr. Ellison testified that Ms. Sawyers is
prohibited from disbursing the funds to him until a court determines who is entitled to the money
in escrow [Tr. pp. 34-35].
In August of 2023, Mr. Ellison filed a motion in the Domestic Relations Court requesting
specific performance and entry of an order to appoint an expert to make the required calculation
of the marital and nonmarital interest in his retirement plan so that the appropriate division could
be determined [Creditor Ex. F]. In the same motion, he also requested that the Domestic Relations
Court hold the Debtor in contempt for failing to comply with the July 2023 Order requiring the
parties to agree on an expert to calculate the values.
Prior to a hearing being held on Mr. Ellison’s motion for specific performance and
contempt, the Debtor filed a chapter 13 bankruptcy case on September 25, 2023 with Case Number
23-11841 [Tr. pp. 41-42]. The case was dismissed on March 8, 2024 for the Debtor’s failure to
Case 1:25-bk-10859 Doc 142 Filed 05/20/26 Entered 05/20/26 12:36:03 Desc Main
Document Page 6 of 13

make plan payments [Tr. p. 42]. Mr. Ellison tried to get the matter set back in front of the Domestic
Relations Court, but the Debtor filed multiple appeals of state court orders that stayed the
proceedings [ Tr. pp. 42-43]. In addition, the Debtor filed her current bankruptcy case, Case
Number 25-10859 on April 14, 2025 [Tr. p. 90]. Mr. Ellison testified that the Debtor’s bankruptcy
cases and appeals have prevented the state court from hearing the matter for over two years [Tr. p.
43]. During this time, he has lost the potential growth on the retirement funds that would have been
in his retirement plan [Tr. pp. 43-44]. The Debtor testified that she filed bankruptcy to prevent a
finding of contempt against her in the Domestic Relations Court because she was unable to repay
the money [Tr. pp. 159-160].
Mr. Ellison testified to his understanding that the Domestic Relations Court is prepared to
order the expert to make the calculation of the appropriate apportionment of his retirement plan
once any pending Debtor appeals are resolved [Tr. pp. 35 and 49]. He also testified that, if relief
from the stay would be granted, he and his domestic relations attorney were prepared to go to trial
in the Domestic Relations Court to obtain the final determination [Tr., pp. 35-36, 45]. The Debtor,
on the other hand, testified to her continuing concern that any return to the Domestic Relations
Court would expose her to the possibility of a contempt finding by that court and coercive sanctions
[Tr. pp. 160-61].
II. 	LEGAL ANALYSIS
Mr. Ellison requests relief from the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) to
permit him to pursue a final determination in the Domestic Relations Court regarding the proper
division of the marital portion of his retirement plan between himself and the Debtor as well as a
calculation of any overpayment of funds received by the Debtor pursuant to the QDRO.
Bankruptcy Code Section 362(d)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to grant relief from the automatic
Case 1:25-bk-10859 Doc 142 Filed 05/20/26 Entered 05/20/26 12:36:03 Desc Main
Document Page 7 of 13

stay for cause. “‘Cause may be shown if the equities of a particular case dictate that litigation
should proceed in another forum other than the bankruptcy court for the purpose of liquidating the
claim on which the lawsuit is premised.’” In re SCS Logistics, Inc., 671 B.R. 224, 247 (Bankr.
S.D. Ohio 2025) (quoting Looby v. Oh (In re Oh), Adv. No. 19-1026, 2020 Bankr LEXIS 1207, at
*13, 2020 WL 8184208, at *5, (Bankr. S.D. Ohio March 31, 2020)).
In order to determine whether to grant relief to allow litigation to proceed in a different
forum, bankruptcy courts consider the following factors: “1) judicial economy; 2) trial readiness;
3) the resolution of preliminary bankruptcy issues; 4) the creditor’s chance of success on the
merits; and 5) the cost of defense or other potential burden to the bankruptcy estate and the impact
of the litigation on other creditors.” Garzoni v. K-Mart Corp. (In re Garzoni), 35 F. App’x 179,
181 (6th Cir. May 8, 2002); SCS Logistics, Inc., 671 B.R. at 247.
A. 	Judicial Economy and Trial Readiness
“The judicial economy factor looks at how much time and energy another court has already
invested into the proceedings.” Hornback v. Polylok, Inc. (In re Hornback), 2021 Bankr. LEXIS
3167, at *8, 2021 WL 5320418, at *3 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. Nov. 16, 2021) (citing Junk v. CitiMortgage,
Inc. (In re Junk), 512 B.R. 584, 607 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2014)). It also considers the other court’s
familiarity with the facts and circumstances of the underlying action. Id. A related factor is trial
readiness and, relevant to this factor, is whether the litigation in the other forum has reached such
an advanced stage that it should be allowed to proceed to conclusion. See SCS Logistics, Inc., 671
B.R. at 249.
These two factors favor granting relief from the automatic stay in this instance. The
Domestic Relations Court is the forum that has presided over and is most familiar with the parties’
divorce, separation agreement, and the QDRO in dispute. Furthermore, the parties’ litigation was
Case 1:25-bk-10859 Doc 142 Filed 05/20/26 Entered 05/20/26 12:36:03 Desc Main
Document Page 8 of 13

already in an advanced stage when the Debtor filed her bankruptcy petition. Prior to the bankruptcy
filing, the Domestic Relations Court held a multi-day evidentiary hearing leading to its conclusion
that the QDRO contained errors and must be set aside and that the appropriate division of Mr.
Ellison’s retirement plan must be re-calculated. As Mr. Ellison testified, there is little left to do
besides choosing an expert to conduct the recalculation once the Debtor’s state court appeals are
resolved. Accordingly, this Court concludes that the Domestic Relations Court is the best forum
from the standpoint of judicial economy and trial readiness to conclude the parties’ litigation
regarding the proper division of the retirement funds to finality.
B. 	Resolution of Preliminary Bankruptcy Issues
Neither party identified any preliminary bankruptcy issues that need to be resolved prior to
relief from stay being granted. However, the Debtor did argue during the evidentiary hearing that
she was concerned that, should a final judgment be granted in favor of Mr. Ellison in the Domestic
Relations Court, escrowed funds might be released “outside the bankruptcy claims allowance
process” [Tr. p. 200]. This Court addresses that concern by requiring that, following any judgment
rendered in the Domestic Relations Court, the parties must return to this Court to adjudicate the
Motion for Turnover [Docket Number 105], the Amended Objection to Proof of Claim [Docket
Number 	63] 	and 	pending 	confirmation 	objections. 	These 	adjudications 	will 	include 	a
determination of the appropriate release of the funds held in escrow and the allowance and
appropriate treatment of Mr. Ellison’s claim consistent with the determinations made by the
Domestic Relations Court. Accordingly, neither party may execute on any judgment rendered in
the Domestic Relations Court until returning to this Court for these matters to be adjudicated. With
that safeguard in place, this factor favors granting relief from the automatic stay.
Case 1:25-bk-10859 Doc 142 Filed 05/20/26 Entered 05/20/26 12:36:03 Desc Main
Document Page 9 of 13

C. 	The Creditor’s Chance of Success on the Merits
With respect to demonstrating the probability of success on the merits, “all that is required
is that the movant make more than a vague initial showing that he can establish a prima facie case.”
Lewis v. Anderson (In re Anderson), 670 B.R. 528, 559 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2025) (further citation
omitted) (noting that even a slight probability of success on the merits may be sufficient to support
lifting the automatic stay in an appropriate case). In this instance, the Domestic Relations Court
has already entered an order favoring the movant, Mr. Ellison, with its determination that the
QDRO contained errors leading to the Debtor being unjustly enriched and requiring the QDRO to
be set aside and the proper division of the retirement funds to be recalculated. That July 2023 Order
alone demonstrates that Mr. Ellison has more than a slight probability of success on the merits
should this matter be returned to state court for a final adjudication of the appropriate calculation
of the QDRO.
To counter, the Debtor argues that the Domestic Relations Court’s July 2023 Order is
interlocutory and not a final judgment. As such, she asserts that the Domestic Relations Court’s
determination that the QDRO is incorrectly calculated should be ignored and the bankruptcy court
should re-decide the issue itself in the claims allowance process.
This 	Court 	disagrees. 	While 	the 	Domestic 	Relations 	Court’s 	July 	2023 	Order 	is
interlocutory, this Court is not at liberty to ignore the order and redetermine whether the QDRO is
incorrectly calculated. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a party losing in state court is barred
from seeking what is in substance an appellate review of the state court judgment from a United
States district court or bankruptcy court. See RLR Investments, LLC v. City of Pigeon Forge, 4
F.4th 380, 385-387 (6th Cir. 2021); In re Evergreen Site Holdings, Inc., 652 B.R. 286, 296 (Bankr.
S.D. Ohio 2023) (holding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine generally provides that “lower federal
Case 1:25-bk-10859 Doc 142 Filed 05/20/26 Entered 05/20/26 12:36:03 Desc Main
Document Page 10 of 13

courts may not engage in appellate review of state-court decisions” (cleaned up)). In the Sixth
Circuit, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies not only to final judgments and orders, but also to
interlocutory orders when those orders involve determinations on the merits. RLR Investments, 4
F.4th at 389 and 392-95; Evergreen, 652 B.R. at 296.
The Domestic Relations Court’s July 2023 Order, while interlocutory, contains detailed
findings and conclusions made after a multi-day evidentiary hearing. Those findings and
conclusions are clearly made on the merits and cannot be reviewed or redetermined by a federal
bankruptcy court.
Given that the determinations in that Domestic Relations Court’s July 2023 Order favor
Mr. Ellison, this Court concludes that he has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits
should this matter be returned to the state court for final adjudication. This factor supports granting
relief from the automatic stay.
D. 	Cost of Defense and Impact of Litigation on the Estate or Other Parties
No documentary or testimonial evidence was presented regarding any costs to the
bankruptcy estate or negative impact that litigating in state court might have on other creditors.
Nonetheless, the Debtor testified to her fear that granting relief from the automatic stay would
expose her to potential contempt sanctions in the Domestic Relations Court.
The Debtor has reason for concern. Based on the exhibits admitted at the evidentiary
hearing, one of the last prepetition filings in the Domestic Relations Court was a motion filed by
Mr. Ellison captioned Petitioner/Husband’s Motion for Specific Performance and to Hold
Respondent in Contempt for Failure to Comply with Order of July 25, 2023 [Creditor Ex. F]. As
the caption suggests, the motion not only requested relief related to finalizing the appropriate
Case 1:25-bk-10859 Doc 142 Filed 05/20/26 Entered 05/20/26 12:36:03 Desc Main
Document Page 11 of 13

calculation and division of the retirement funds, but also asked for contempt sanctions against the
Debtor for her failure to comply with the July 2023 Order.
While it may be appropriate for this Court to grant relief from the automatic stay for the
limited purpose of permitting the Domestic Relations Court to enter a judgment recalculating the
QDRO and quantifying the potential overpayment to the Debtor, it is not appropriate for that court
to entertain contempt sanctions against the Debtor. See, e.g., In re Dougherty-Kelsay, 636 B.R.
889, 898-99 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2022) (concluding that a family court order finding a debtor in civil
contempt for failing to pay prepetition arrearages violated the automatic stay and was void).
While the Debtor has a valid concern, that concern was addressed by Mr. Ellison at the
evidentiary hearing. Through his counsel, Mr. Ellison agreed that, should relief from the automatic
stay be granted, he would not continue to seek contempt sanctions against the Debtor in the
Domestic Relations Court [Tr. pp. 181-182].
With that agreement in mind, this Court concludes that the Garzoni factors support granting
Mr. Ellison limited relief from the automatic stay to return to the Domestic Relations Court to
obtain a final adjudication of the proper calculation of the QDRO and any potential overpayment
that was made to the Debtor. Because at least one prepetition motion filed by Mr. Ellison in the
Domestic Relations Court includes a request for contempt sanctions against the Debtor [see
Creditor Ex. F], this Court will require Mr. Ellison to either amend that filing to remove the request
for sanctions or withdraw the filing altogether and submit one to the Domestic Relations Court
that does not include a request for sanctions and is in line with the limited relief from stay granted
by this Court.
Case 1:25-bk-10859 Doc 142 Filed 05/20/26 Entered 05/20/26 12:36:03 Desc Main
Document Page 12 of 13

III. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, this Court GRANTS Mr. Ellison’s Motion for Relief from Stay
[Docket Number 68] to permit him to return to the Domestic Relations Court and pursue a final
adjudication of the appropriate calculation of the QDRO and potential overpayment to the Debtor.
However, Mr. Ellison shall not pursue sanctions against the Debtor and must amend or withdraw
active filings in the Domestic Relations Court to remove such requests. Furthermore, following
any judgment rendered in the Domestic Relations Court, the parties must return to this Court to
adjudicate the Motion for Turnover [Docket Number 105], the Amended Objection to Proof of
Claim [Docket Number 63] and pending confirmation objections. These adjudications will include
a determination of the appropriate release of the funds held in escrow and the allowance and
appropriate treatment of Mr. Ellison’s claim consistent with the determinations made by the
Domestic Relations Court. Accordingly, neither party may execute on any judgment rendered in
the Domestic Relations Court until returning to this Court for these matters to be adjudicated.
SO ORDERED.
Distribution List:
Default List
Case 1:25-bk-10859 Doc 142 Filed 05/20/26 Entered 05/20/26 12:36:03 Desc Main
Document Page 13 of 13