### NUM BER 13-07- 0044 8-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
RH OND A

L YNN GIL CH RIST , A pp ellan t,
v . M A RION SC OTT GIL CH RIST , A pp ellee.

On ap pe al f rom th e 8 8th D istrict Co urt of T y ler C ou nt y , T exas 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G arza , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la Appel lan t, Rho nda G il chr is t, appeal s fr om the tr ial co urt’ s o rd er g ra nti ng a j udg ment
nun c pro tun c in a div orce actio n. By tw o issues, Rhond a con ten ds tha t; (1) the trial court
er re d i n g ra nti ng the ju d gm e n t nunc pro tun c b ecaus e the mis tak e i n the final dec re e of2

div or ce w as a j udi ci al er ro r not a cl er ic al one; and ( 2) thi s Co u rt s houl d aw ar d her the
am oun t of

t he ban k b alan ce on the d ate t he m edia tion a gr eem ent w as signed. W e reverse and rende r. I. B A CK GRO UND Rho nda Ly nn Gi lc hr is t and M ar io n S co tt Gil chr is t w er e mar ri ed on Ma y 18, 1985, and sepa rated on Au gust 1, 200 4. In Au gust 200 4, Rhon da f iled f or div orce. T he co uple had tw o c hil dr en, b ut on ly one w as sti ll i n hi g h s chool at the t ime of the di v or ce. The par ti es par ti ci pated in mediat ion and si g ned a mediatio n agr eement o n Nov ember 7, 2005. The mediat ion ag re ement g av e Rho nda “t he Tahoe, t he M ust ang , and the K aw asak i Mu le as w ell as the Cha ppar al boat, the Pontoo n boat , her IRA’ s, acc ounts in her name, one hal f (1⁄2) t h e famil y phot og ra phs. ” She w as als o g iv en $185 ,000 to be pai d ov er

ten y ear s at f iv e perc ent int er estand her jew elr y . Al l re al and pers onal pr oper ty not e xpli cit ly give n to Rho nda w as g iv en to Sc ott. As par t of thi s medi ati on ag re ement, Scot t com plete d an inv ent oryof comm unity and sep arate ly ow ned prope rty

. Rh ond a did
n o t p re p a re a n in ve n t o ry be c a u s e S c o t t m a in t a in e d t h e f a m il y f in a n c e s
. In t h e in ve n t o ry,
sw or n to by

Sc ott, he c har act er iz ed C it iz ens Stat e Bank ac countnumber

370394 as “W SP”
or w ife’s se par ate p ro per ty

. W hen t he i nv ent o ryw as amended after the mediat ion , t he
ac c ou ntw as s ti l l c ha r ac te r i z ed a s “ W SP ”

. Th i s a me nd ed i nvento r y i nc l ud ed a c ol um n mark ed “ w ife” and one m a rke d “husb and” ; t her e w as a “ w ” in the w ife c olu mn nex t t o C i t i z e n s S t a t e B a n ka c c o u n t n u mb e r 37 0 3 9 4

. S c o t t , h o w e v e r , c o n t e n d s t h a th i s e x - w i fe shoul d nothav e r ecei v ed th is ac count

. The final di v or ce decr ee aw ar ds Rho nda “ the funds o n depos it , t og ether w it h
accru e d butunpai d i nter est , i n the foll ow ing bank s, sav ing s i nst it uti ons, or financ ial3

institut ions in the sole cont rol o f wife , includin g but not limite d to: a. Citiz ens St ate Bank,
acc ount number

D DA 370394 .” After

the mediat ion ag re ement an d the f inal jud g ment
w er e ent er ed, S cot t c onti nued t o us e ac count370394 . He depos it ed money i nto t he
acc ount and pai d al imony to Rho nda from the a cc ount. W hen Sc ott d isc ov er ed th at Rho nda bel iev ed th e ac countw as her s, he c los ed i t. R hon d a t h e n fil ed a moti on for enf orcem ent of

prope rty div ision. Scot t respon ded by f iling a mo tion fo r judgme nt nunc pro tuncthatw as g ra nted. Thi s a ppeal foll ow ed.

II. S U BST ANT I VE L A W A ND S TAND ARD OF R EVI EW “After t he tr ial co urt l oses i ts jur is dic ti on ov er a j udg ment, itca n cor re ct onl y cl er ic al errors in the ju dgme nt by judgmen t nun c pro tun c.” Esc obar v. Es cobar

, 711 S.W .2d 2 30, 231 ( Tex . 198 6)

. “A

j udi ci al er ro r oc cu rs i n the re nder ing as oppos ed to the enter ing of ju d gmen t.” Id . ( emphasi s i n or ig ina l)

. A c ler ic al er ro r does not r esul t from jud ic ial
re asoni ng o r deter minat ion

. Andrew s v. Koch , 702 S.W .2d 5 84, 5 85 ( Tex . 198 6)

. A cl er ic al er ro r is a di sc re pancy betw een t he ent ry

of jud g me n t in t h e r ecor d and the jud g ment t hat w as act ual ly r ender ed. Barto n v. Gillespie , 1 7 8 S

. W

. 3 d 1 2 1 , 1 2 6 ( T e x. App .–Hou ston [1st Dist.] 20 05, no pe t.). W het her judgm ent w as rend ered and the na ture of that ju dg ment are q uest ion s f or the tr ial co urt. Av

il a v . Lon e St ar R adi olo gy , 183 S.W .3d 814 , 821 (Tex. App. –W aco 2 005 , no pe t.). W het her an error i s clerical or judicial is a matter of law , t her efore t he tr ial co urt’ s d eter minat ion as to the n atur e of the er ro r is not bin din g on t his C our

t. Tex. Dep’t o f

Pub. Safe ty v. Moore , 5 1 S

. W

. 3 d 3 5 5 , 3 5 8 (T e x. App .–T y ler 2001 , no pe t.).4 III

. A N A LY S IS Rhon da raises two issues. First, she claims the trial court erred in gr ant ing Scott’s moti on for jud g ment nun c p ro tunc

. Seco nd, s he c lai ms that she shoul d be aw ar ded t he bal ance of Ci ti z ens Stat e Bank ac countnu m b e r 370394 as of the dat e the medi ati on ag re ement w as si g ned, rat her than as of the date t he final dec re e of di v or ce w as si g ned. Errors in a w ritten jud gmen t are no t aut om atically clerical merel y b ec ause they arose out of cler ic al mis tak es. W

. Tex

. State Bank v. Gen. Res . M gm t. Cor p. , 723 S.W .2d 3 04, 306, (Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 1987, w ri t r ef’d n. r. e.) ; Uni ver sal Under

writer s I ns. C o. v . F er guson , 471 S.W .2d 28, 30 (Tex. 1971 ). Here, the mista ke arose out of an error ma de by Scott in his pr epar ati on of t he inv entor y that w as made par

t of the mediat ed s ettl ement ag re ement. He tes ti fied th at he ac ci dental ly g av e the ac countto Rho nda bec ause he w as more w or ri ed
a b o u t appor

ti oni ng the re al pr oper ty

. He als o tes ti fied, t hat i f he had no ti ced that the inv entor y l is ted t he ac counti n her name, he w oul d hav e c hang ed i t. Judg ments nunc pr o tun c c an notmake subs tanti v e c hang es. In r e M ar ri age of W ard , 137 S.W .3d 910 , 913 (Tex. App. –T exarkana 20 04, no p et.). If the issue in error i s one of the pr imar

y j udi ci al deci si ons the c our t made, then anychang e made i s mat er ial and is ther efore a jud ic ial e rror
. Wood v. Gr if fi n & Br and of McAl len , 671 S.W .2d 1 25, 1 29 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1984, no w ri t)

. A cour t cannot use a judg ment nunc pro tun c t o chang e the ter ms of the or ig ina l jud g ment. M athes v. Kelton , 569 S.W .2 d 87 6 , 8 7 7- 78 (Tex . 197 8) ; Cappadona Elec. M gm t. v. Cam er

on C ounty , 1 8 0 S

. W

. 3 d 3 6 4 , 3 7 5 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2005, no p et.)

.5

Her e, t he er ro r i s a ma t e r i a l o n e
. B y c h a n g i n g t h e o r d e r t o a w a r d t h e a c c o u n tto Scot t, the trial court mat er ia ll y a lt e re d the terms of the original judgme nt. T his term aff ect ed bot h the medi ati on and the fin al set tl ement. In fact, Rhonda te sti fied th at s he
re li ed on the i nv entor ies to re ach an ag re ement at mediat ion

. Ret ro act iv ely ch ang ing an
ess enti al ter m thatsh e r elie d o n c a st s a doubton w hether R honda w oul d hav e ev en
a gre e d to th e se tt le m e n t in th e f irs t p la ce . No t o n ly do e s t h e n u n c pro tu n c o rd e r ch a n ge the fin al jud g ment, itch ang es the par ti es’ or ig ina l ag re ement. W hil e Sc ott admit ted t hat he mi sta kenl y

g av e R honda t he ac count , he nev erthel ess inc lud ed it as her pr oper ty i n the inv entor y , w hic h w as used in r eachi ng a set tl ement ag re ement and su bseq uentl y formed par t of the jud g ment. W e s ust ain R honda’ s first is sue. The sec ond i ss ue i s n ot c ontes ted b y Sc ott. Rh o n d a cl aims the mediat ed set tl ement ag re ement is bin din g as of the d ate i t w as si g ned. In re Mar ri age of Jo yner

, 196 S.W .3d 8 83, 8 89 ( Tex . Ap p.–T e x ar kana 2006, pet. deni ed)

. A medi ated set tl ement ag re ement i s b ind ing on a ll par ti es if the ag re ement c lea rl y sa y s it is bindi ng , i s s ig ned by both par ti e s, a n d i s si g ned by

eac h par

ty ’s att or ney
. T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 6.6 02( b) (V er non 2006)

. Scot t does not addr ess Rho nda’ s cont enti on that the se ttl ement ag re ement i s b ind ing w hen s ig ned. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1( h) . H e mer ely co ntends that the medi ati on ag re ement s houl d be bin din g
. Si nce the medi ati o n a g re ement meet s t he sta tutor y r eq uir ements of a bin din g ag re ement, w e c oncl ude t he medi ati on ag re ement w as bin din g as of the d ate it was sign e d , and R honda s houl d be aw ar ded t he bank ac count bal ance as of Nov ember 7, 2005, w hic h w as $26,629 .77. W e s ust ain R honda’ s s econd is sue.6 IV. C ONCL US I ON For the f oregoing reason s the trial court’s judgm ent is r eversed, an d judgme nt is
re nder ed i n fav or

of Rho nda G il chr is t. Therefor e, be ca u se t h e medi ated set tl ement ag re ement w as bin din g on the date itw as si g ned, R honda i s e nti tl ed to $26, 629.77, the bal ance of acco unt 3 70394 a s o f Nov ember 7, 2005.

RO SE V ELA J u s t i c e
Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 2 6th d ay

of June, 2008.