DeGroot v. DeGroot
369 S.W.3d 918
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Katherine was awarded 50% of Douglas's 401(k) in the divorce decree; no QDRO was signed at that time.
- A 2009-2010 enforcement hearing led to a February 8, 2010 QDRO that treated Katherine’s share as of July 19, 2006 and removed the earnings/losses language.
- Douglas allegedly withdrew funds from the 401(k) eleven times between 2008 and 2010, prompting enforcement actions.
- The trial court found Katherine’s share was $145,310.46 (half of $290,620.92 on July 19, 2006) and ordered Douglas to pay $50,000 immediately plus 96 monthly $1,000 payments.
- Douglas challenged the enforcement order as a substantive change, divestiture of separate property, and exceeding pleadings; Katherine challenged the payment-by-installments and failure to award prejudgment/post-judgment interest.
- The court remanded for post-judgment interest with a rate to be determined, while affirming the remainder of the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether enforcement altered the divorce division of property | Douglas argues it substantively changed the division | Katherine argues it enforced/clarified the decree | No impermissible change; money judgment allowed; affirmed |
| Whether the order divested Douglas of separate property | Douglas contends divestiture occurred | Katherine contends enforcement; preservation | Issue not preserved; Douglas loses on appellate review |
| Whether the award exceeded Katherine's pleadings | Douglas claims damages exceeded withdrawals | Katherine sought replacement costs and losses; pleadings lacked max damages | Douglas failed to preserve; no error in amount awarded |
| Whether payment by Monthly installments was proper vs a lump sum | Katherine prefers lump sum | Douglas challenges installment method | Court did not abuse discretion; monthly payments proper |
| Whether prejudgment and post-judgment interest should be awarded | Katherine sought prejudgment and post-judgment interest | Statutory basis and equitable considerations; not all requested apply | Prejudgment interest not awarded; post-judgment interest required; remand for rate |
Key Cases Cited
- Hollingsworth v. Hollingsworth, 274 S.W.3d 811 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008) (enforcement/clarification standards; abuse of discretion standard)
- de la Garza v. de la Garza, 185 S.W.3d 924 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006) (money judgment as remedy when payment not made as ordered)
- Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108 (Tex.1990) (abuse-of-discretion review; standard when no findings of fact)
- Shanks v. Treadway, 110 S.W.3d 444 (Tex.2003) (clarification cannot alter substantive division after final decree)