the [non-member spouse] nor an inequitable deprivation of his or her rights. {¶ 40} Based upon the above reasoning, numerous Ohio courts have rejected the argument that the coverture fraction illegally or unfairly awards the nonmember spouse with pension benefits earned after the divorce. See, e.g., Sayson at ¶ 66-68 (finding it fair and equitable to award a former spouse her share of the increased future value of a pension earned when the member spouse served 15 years of active military duty during the marriage); Pruitt, 2005-Ohio-4424, at ¶ 58 (rejecting the member spouse’s argument that use of the coverture fraction improperly deprived him of benefits he earned subsequent to the divorce); DiFrangia v. DiFrangia, 11th Dist. No. 2003-T-0004, 2003-Ohio-6090, 2003 WL 22697977, ¶ 20-23 (<HOLDING>); Peters v. Peters (Feb. 23, 2001), 2d Dist.
recognizing that any delay in the disposition of a case concerning the termination of parental rights could result in potential detriment to the child holding that the receiver of assets not the subsequent purchaser of the assets retained all liabilities not specifically enumerated in a similar purchase and assumption agreement holding that application of the coverture fraction did not result in a future award of nonmarital assets earned subsequent to the termination of the marriage holding that a termination of benefits must go handinhand with a termination of the liability of an employer holding that interim award was final and confirmable where award required immediate payment and did not bear on subsequent arbitration proceedings