With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". from its judgment. The trial court was within its discretion, however, in not awarding a credit for the payments made by George pursuant to the preliminary agreement between he and Paula. Reversed in part and remanded with instructions. Affirmed in part. HOFFMAN and RUCKER, JJ., concur. 1 . In their briefs, the parties assume that the trial court was presented with the request for written findings of fact and conclusions of law. Our standard of review reflects the parties’ assumption. 2 . Since Hisquierdo, the statute has been changed to allow Tier II railroad pension benefits to be treated as marital property. The Hisquierdo holding remains applicable to issues concerning Tier I railroad pension benefits. See e.g., Tarbet v. Tarbet, 97 Ohio App.3d 674, 647 N.E.2d 254, 256 (1994) (<HOLDING>). 3 . We note that Paula filed with this court

A: holding that the superior court had no jurisdiction over the division of marital property when the district court had properly invoked jurisdiction over the property
B: holding that the supreme courts conclusion in hisquierdo that tier i benefits may not be treated as marital property subject to division remains the law
C: holding that reconsideration of the correctness of property division was barred on appeal from the judgment enforcing that division
D: holding that trial court cannot include retirement benefits in marital estate subject to property division absent proof of present value
B.