COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 71194 JAN C. PUSTAI : : Plaintiff-appellant : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION SUSAN A. PUSTAI : : Defendant-appellee : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : JULY 31, 1997 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from : Court of Common Pleas : Domestic Relations Division : Case No. D-220,915 JUDGMENT : DISMISSED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : _______________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellant: DANIEL D. WILT Attorney at Law 27801 Euclid Avenue, #450 Euclid, Ohio 44132 For defendant-appellee: PATRICIA WINFIELD Attorney at Law 22408 Lake Shore Boulevard Euclid, Ohio 44123 - 2 - PRYATEL, J.: Defendant-appellant, Jan C. Pustai ("appellant"), appeals the judgment of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, which adopted the magistrate's decision find- ing plaintiff-appellee, Susan A. Pustai ("appellee"), entitled to fifty percent of the marital portion of the husband's military pension in an amount to be later determined. Because we find that the judgment appealed from does not constitute a final appealable order, we dismiss the appeal. The record reflects that the parties were divorced in Novem- ber 1993, incorporating into the decree of divorce a separation agreement wherein all issues relative to their marriage were re- solved with the exception of appellant's military pension. In July 1994, the trial court determined that this pension was a marital asset under R.C. 3105.171 and ordered the matter be set for hearing to determine an equitable division. Appellant appealed this decision, which this court sua sponte dismissed for lack of a final appealable order. In its judgment entry journalized on January 6, 1995, the trial court determined that appellee was entitled to one-half of the marital portion of appellant's pension and ordered that the matter be set for hearing to determine the amount of this - 3 - entitlement. Appellant again appealed, and again this court sua sponte dismissed the appeal for lack of a final order. In a decision journalized March 4, 1996, the magistrate re- iterated that appellee is to receive fifty percent of the marital portion of the accrued benefit calculated as of the date of appel- lant's retirement. The magistrate was, however, unable to calcu- late the marital portion because appellant, who is not yet re- tired, continues to accumulate points that add to the basis for determining his final retirement benefit. Appellant has satisfied the twenty-year employment pre-requisite to qualify for the pen- sion but has not satisfied the remaining requirement that renders the pension payable commencing on the sixtieth anniversary of his birth, which will occur on November 8, 2008. In her findings of fact and conclusions of law, the magistrate explained: In either event, the exact amount which should be paid to [appellee] cannot be determined at the present time because the value of the monthly benefit will not be known until the [appellant] retires. Likewise the total number of points earned under the plan *** will not be known so long as [appellant] continues to accumulate points. Based on the foregoing the Magistrate has no alternative but to defer the final determina- tion of the value of the marital portion of the [appellant's] military pension to the point in time when [appellant] completely retires and ceases accumulating points toward retirement. It is from this order that appellant now appeals; however, it is necessary to determine whether the aforementioned judgment is a final appealable order so as to invoke the subject-matter - 4 - jurisdiction of this court. See Section 3(B)(2), Article IV, Ohio Constitution; R.C. 2505.03(A). The definition of a final order has been codified at R.C. 2505.02. The portion of that provision relevant to this appeal provides that an order is final if it is "an order [that] affects a substantial right made in a special proceeding *** ." See State ex rel. Papp v. James (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 373, 378 (divorce and ancillary issues related to divorce are "special statutory proceedings"). Nonetheless, the order at issue is only final and immediately appealable if it affects a substantial right. See Polikoff v. Adam (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 100, 108. An order affects a substantial right if, in the absence of an immediate appeal, one of the parties would be foreclosed from appropriate relief in the future. Bell v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr. (1994), 67 Ohio St.3d 60, 63, modified on other grounds Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 638, 657; Koroshazi v. Koroshazi (1996), 110 Ohio App.3d 637, 640. Hence, appellant must demonstrate that, in the absence of immediate review of the order, he will be denied effective relief in the future. We find that appellant has not shown that he would be denied the ability to obtain effective relief in the future. As can be ascertained from the magistrate's decision, the trial court clear- ly contemplated future action by deferring the determination of the value of the marital portion of appellant's pension until such time as appellant ceases to accumulate points necessary to calculate - 5 - this benefit. Consequently, appellant is not foreclosed from seeking relief at the time such a determination is made. The order of the trial court, therefore, did not affect a substantial right. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is not ripe for review and, hence, is not a final appealable order allowing immediate examination by this court. Appeal dismissed. - 6 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant her costs herein taxed. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. DAVID T. MATIA, P.J. AND DIANE KARPINSKI, J. CONCUR JUDGE *AUGUST PRYATEL *SITTING BY ASSIGNMENT: August Pryatel, retired Judge of the Eighth District Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of the Supreme Court of Ohio. N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E), unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .