not abuse its discretion in using the coverture fraction in valuing and distributing Grace’s STRS pension. {¶ 44} As a final matter, Grace contends that we should reverse the trial court’s formula for dividing her STRS pension because until her retirement, the parties were unable to ascertain the exact amount of the monthly payment due to Nathaniel. While Grace is correct regarding the inexactitude inherent in the trial court’s formula, the only unknown factor was the date of her retirement. Once Grace retired, STRS could apply the formula set forth in the DOPO to calculate the amount due. Therefore, the formula does not entangle the parties’ financial affairs to the extent that an abuse of discretion results. See Mann v. Mann, 4th Dist. No. 09CA38, 2011-Ohio-1646, 2011 WL 1233325, ¶21 (<HOLDING>). {¶ 45} In sum, we conclude that the trial
holding that failure to award front pay because the district court impliedly found that other relief was sufficient did not constitute an abuse of discretion holding that a purely financial exaction does not constitute a taking holding not an abuse of discretion to deny funds holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion holding that the failure to completely disentangle the parties financial affairs does not constitute an abuse of discretion