Tracie Marie Scheffler F/K/A Tracie Marie Parson v. Paul Michael Parson, 13-15-00150-CV

Background

Parties divorced in Wilson County, Texas; appellant Tracie Scheffler (formerly Parson) and appellee Paul Parson executed a Rule 11 settlement awarding the wife a one-half community interest in the husband’s military retirement; a Corrected Final Decree of Divorce and a Domestic Relations Order (DRO) were entered May 24, 2011.
At divorce the servicemember was active duty; DRO used a Berry-style formula but reduced intermediate calculations to percentages (stating "16.66%" and "35.0%") rather than showing the numerators/denominators. DRO also recited the correct raw values elsewhere (months of service, high‑36 base pay).
Husband retired October 31, 2014; when wife plugged in the known retirement figures she concluded the DRO’s computed monthly payment to her was much lower than the correct Berry calculation (DRO produced about $92/month vs. correct ~$289/month by appellant’s arithmetic).
On January 6, 2015 wife filed a post‑decree petition to correct or amend the DRO to clarify the miscalculation (seeking to replace the improper 16.66% and 35.0% with the correct computed percentages). Husband moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the petition sought an impermissible modification.
The trial court granted husband’s plea and dismissed the clarification petition for lack of jurisdiction on February 13, 2015. Appellant appeals, arguing the DRO is ambiguous/was miscalculated and the court retained authority to clarify (not modify) the DRO to effectuate the parties’ agreed division.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Scheffler)	Defendant's Argument (Parson)	Held (trial court)
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear a post‑decree petition to correct/clarify the DRO	Scheffler: petition seeks clarification of an ambiguous DRO (mathematical/clerical errors masked by percentages), not a substantive modification; court retains power to clarify under Texas Family Code §9.101 et seq.	Parson: petition is a disguised attempt to modify the property division in the divorce/DRO; court lacks jurisdiction to alter the final division.	Trial court sustained Parson's plea and dismissed Scheffler’s petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Whether the DRO is ambiguous such that clarification is warranted	Scheffler: DRO omits the raw numerator/denominator used to reach the two percentages; using the DRO’s stated facts produces different (higher) percentages—latent ambiguity requiring clarification to effectuate parties’ agreement.	Parson: (argued) the decree and DRO are unambiguous as entered and reflect the parties’ agreement; parole evidence and re‑litigation are barred.	Trial court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to grant Scheffler’s requested relief (did not reach merits of ambiguity).
Whether correcting the numerical errors would constitute an impermissible modification of property division	Scheffler: correcting calculation to reflect the Berry formula is merely implementation/clarification of the agreed division, not a substantive change.	Parson: any change to the dollar award would alter the property division and is therefore barred.	Trial court treated the petition as outside its jurisdiction and dismissed.
Standard of review for post‑decree clarification/dismissal	Scheffler: clarification rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion; jurisdictional dismissal reviewed de novo—she urges reversal.	Parson: N/A (relied on plea to jurisdiction).	Order dismissing petition for lack of jurisdiction was entered; appellant seeks reversal on de novo (jurisdiction) and abuse‑of‑discretion (clarification) grounds.

Key Cases Cited

Berry v. Berry, 647 S.W.2d 945 (Tex. 1983) (endorses valuation approach for former spouse’s share of military retirement and treating COLA adjustments)
Taggart v. Taggart, 552 S.W.2d 422 (Tex. 1977) (earlier apportionment formula dividing months served during marriage by total months of service)
Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. 1990) (post‑judgment clarification/enforcement by divorce court reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391 (Tex. 1983) (principles for interpreting ambiguous judgments and contracts)
In re R.F.G., 282 S.W.3d 722 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (treatment of agreed property division as contract and latent ambiguity principles)
Allen v. Allen, 717 S.W.2d 311 (Tex. 1986) (agreed property division incorporated into decree treated as contract for construction)
Baxter v. Ruddle, 794 S.W.2d 76 (Tex. 1990) (res judicata and finality of divorce decrees in property division context)