Tracie Marie Scheffler F/K/A Tracie Marie Parson v. Paul Michael Parson
13-15-00150-CV
Tex. App.Oct 8, 2015Background
- Tracie and Paul Parson divorced in 2011; the Final Decree of Divorce incorporated a Domestic Relations Order (DRO) dividing Paul's military retirement benefits.
- The DRO contained a formula specifying Tracie’s share of disposable retired pay using several numerical values (percentages, base pay, pay grade, longevity).
- Tracie later filed a 2015 petition to “correct or amend” the DRO, asserting two values in the DRO were miscalculated and that, per the parties’ Rule 11 agreement, she was entitled to a one-half community interest; she alleged attorneys made inadvertent calculation mistakes.
- Tracie asserted the correct monthly benefit should be $265.27 rather than the DRO’s $92.81.
- Paul moved to dismiss, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction under Texas Family Code § 9.007 to modify the property division embodied in the divorce decree.
- The trial court granted the motion to dismiss; the court of appeals affirmed, holding the DRO was unambiguous and the court lacked jurisdiction to alter the property division.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could correct or amend the DRO to fix alleged calculation errors in the retirement‑division formula | Tracie: she sought only clarification/correction of miscalculated values (attorneys’ inadvertent mistakes) to reflect her agreed 1/2 community interest | Paul: § 9.007 bars relitigation or modification of the property division in a final divorce decree; dismissal is proper | Court: DRO’s formula is unambiguous; correcting numeric mistakes would impermissibly modify the property division, so the court lacked jurisdiction and dismissal was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Beshears v. Beshears, 423 S.W.3d 493 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014) (standard of review for motions about DRO enforcement and clarification)
- Pearson v. Fillingim, 332 S.W.3d 361 (Tex. 2011) (final divorce judgment dividing property bars relitigation of property division)
- Hagen v. Hagen, 282 S.W.3d 899 (Tex. 2009) (same; court must follow divorce decree language if unambiguous)
- Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. 1990) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
- Sharp v. Sharp, 314 S.W.3d 22 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009) (whether decree is ambiguous is a question of law)