Judith Karen Beshears v. Donald Beshears
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 1111
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Judith and Donald Beshears divorced; Final Decree signed Feb. 5, 2002 dividing assets and initiating a QDRO for Merck retirement benefits.
- The decree awarded Judith 57.5% of Donald’s Merck retirement benefit as of marriage-to-November 8, 2001, and declared the remainder to Donald; a 2002 QDRO followed.
- The 2002 QDRO identified Judith as participant’s alternate payee and provided Judith with a 57.5% share as of November 8, 2001 and named Judith as surviving spouse under a QJSA provision.
- Donald later learned the 2002 QDRO’s survivor designation would require him to provide a survivor annuity to Judith, reducing his own post-retirement benefits and constraining benefits for his current wife.
- In January 2012, Donald moved to vacate or modify the 2002 QDRO on grounds it did not comport with the decree; Judith moved to dismiss and sought to preserve the QDRO.
- The trial court amended the 2002 QDRO to remove Judith as surviving spouse except for the QPSA, denied Judith’s oral motion to amend the date-of-division, and found the decree did not authorize survivor benefits beyond those in the decree.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could amend the 2002 QDRO to remove Judith as surviving spouse (except QPSA) | Beshears argues the decree already settled survivor rights and amendment was improper. | Beshears contends the QDRO added survivor benefits not in the decree and must align with the decree’s division. | Affirmative; court held the 2002 QDRO was void as to the surviving-spouse provision and could be amended to comport with the decree. |
| Whether the trial court properly denied removing the November 8, 2001 division date from the QDRO | Beshears asserts division date impliedly covers post-divorce additions; decree unambiguous about community property. | Beshears argues the date was impliedly the division date but not explicitly stated; read the decree as a whole. | Affirmative; decree read as a whole unambiguously limited the retirement benefit division to the community estate, not post-divorce separate-property sums. |
| Whether the court’s findings about the decree’s division of the retirement benefit are supported | Beshears contends findings misstate the decree’s scope and survivor benefits. | Beshears relies on expert testimony to show QJSA was mischaracterized as separate from the decree. | Affirmative; the evidence supports the trial court’s determinations that the decree did not award survivor benefits and that the 2002 QDRO misaligned with the decree. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shanks v. Treadway, 110 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. 2003) (divorce decree ambiguity; interpret as a whole to harmonize terms)
- Reiss v. Reiss, 118 S.W.3d 439 (Tex. 2003) (interpretation of division of community property; limits of division language)
- Pearson v. Fillingim, 332 S.W.3d 361 (Tex. 2011) (clarifies that terms like ‘estate of the parties’ refer to community property readings)
- Gainous v. Gainous, 219 S.W.3d 97 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (post-divorce orders; continuing jurisdiction to amend to effectuate division)
- Hicks v. Hicks, 348 S.W.3d 281 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (separate-benefit analysis; DR order cannot create duties not in decree)