Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the extent of Diana’s community interest is governed by the fraction formula established in Taggart v. Taggart, 552 S.W.2d 422 (Tex.1977), whereas the value of her interest is governed by the Berry formula. Under the Taggart formula, the extent of the nonmember spouse’s community interest in retirement benefits is calculated by dividing the number of months married under the plan by the total number of months employed at retirement. Thus, when applied to his service record, Eddie’s purported hybrid Taggart-Berry formula yields the following: Eddie’s argument is unavailing for two' reasons. First, and more importantly, the Berry court, though expressly declining to overrule Taggart, significantly altered the Taggart formula. See Shanks v. Treadway, 110 S.W.3d 444, 446 n. 3 (Tex.2003) (<HOLDING>); Wilson v. Uzzel, 953 S.W.2d 384, 390 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing the general rule that offerors may revise any aspect of their proposals they see fit including portions that were not the subject of the amendment and discussions (B) recognizing that berry altered the apportionment and valuation portions of the taggart formula (C) holding that it was error for the court to enter a modified agreement which materially altered the agreement reached by the parties (D) recognizing that fdutpa cases apply a benefit of the bargain damages formula (E) recognizing that joint and several liability of  107 seems unfair but the solution is found in apportionment and contribution
Output (English): holding that it was error for the court to enter a modified agreement which materially altered the agreement reached by the parties