i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 62 7- CV Monica NO YE S , Appellant

v . Ge or g e Carl NO YE S , Appellee Fr om the 218th J udicial District Court, Wil son County , Texas

Trial Court No. 06-09-0492- CVW Honora ble Donna S. Ray es, Judge Pre siding Opinion by : Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: Aug ust 12, 2009 REVERSED AND REMANDED Monica Noyes appe als from the tria l court’s g rantingof Geor g e Carl Noyes’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismiss ing he r motion to enfor ce for lack of jurisdiction. W e re verse and re mand. B ACKG ROUND Monica a nd Geor g e Carl Noy es wer e divorce d on May 8, 2007. The final decr ee of divorce
was signe d by the trial court afte r Monica and Geor g e had ag ree d to a med i at ed s ett lement04

- 08

- 00 62 7- CV

- 2- ag ree ment. By

the terms of the decr ee, the mediated settlement ag ree ment merg ed int o the dec ree . F ur the r, the de c re e state s th at it is e nf or c e a ble a s a c on tr a c t. Ac c or din g to the de c re e , Ge or g e wa s “ awa rd e d the fo llo wi ng a s his so le and sep arate pr op e rt y , a nd the wi fe is d ive ste d o f a ll r ig ht, tit le , inte re st, and c la im i n a

nd to t hat pr op e rt

y :” (1 ) a ho me loc ate d at 14 6 L ake vie w R oa d, Roc kp or t, T e xas; (2) a home loca

ted at 1423 Mea dow Glen, Adkins, Te x as , wi th the following leg al descr iption: “L ots 265 and 266, Unit I V, Whispering Oaks Subdivision, W ilson Count y , Texas”; ( 3 ) a ll h ou s e h o l d f

ur n i tur e , f ur n i s h i n g s , f

i xt ur e s , g oo ds , a rt ob

je c ts, co llectibles, applianc es, and e quipment within his possession or su bje c t to his so le c on tr ol; (4) all clothing, je welry , and other perso n al ef

fects in his poss ession or su bje c t to his so le c on tr ol; (5 ) a ll s ums of

c a shin h is p os se ssi on

or su bje c t to his so le c ontr ol; (6) 50% of his re tirement bene fits in Tim S moot Electric 401( K), a rising out of his employ

ment with Tim S moot as of May 2, 2007; (7) all policies of life insura nce insuringhis life; (8) all broker ag e ac counts, s t o cks, bonds, mutual funds, and se curities reg istered in his name; (9) a 1986 F leetwood B ounder motor home ve hicle; (10) a 2002 horse trailer; (1 1) a 20 02 Mahin dr a

tr a c tor ; (12) a 2003 flatbed trailer ; (13) a 1997 Proline 2700/Galv tra iler; (14) a 1992 F reig htliner with 1973 Lufkin motor vehicle; (15) a 1984 Wellcra ft Scara b I I Ivehicle;04

- 08

- 00 62 7- CV

- 3- (16) a 2005 Explorer vehic le; (17) a 1992 S & H horse ve hicle; (18) a 1973 L

ufkin trailer

vehicle; (19) a 1985 Yamaha D100; (20) a 1985 Suzuki S amura i vehicle; (21) a 1985 White Fre ightliner vehicle; (22) a 1978 L

ufkin trailer

vehicle; (2 3) a 20 05 Mc Cla in b oat; (24) the stock and a

ny other intere s t i n the business known as Ma ster Mari ne Inc ., inc lud ing but no t lim ite d to a ll fu rn iture, fix tur e s, ma c hin e ry , e qu ipm e nt, inv e nto ry , ca sh , re c e iva ble s, a c c ou

nts , g oo ds , and supplies; all persona l p ro p erty used in conne ction with the op e ratio n o f t

he bu sin e ss; and

a ll r ig hts and

pr ivi le g e s, pa st, pr e se nt, o r fu t u re, a

rising out of

or in conne ction with the operation of the bu sin e ss; (2 5) the bu sin e ss k

no wn a s G CN Tr

uc kin g , in c lud ingbut no t li mit e d to a ll furniture , fix tures, mac hinery , equipment, inventory , ca s h, rec eivables, a ccounts, g oods, and supplies; all personal prope rty used in connec tion with the operation of the business; and all rig hts and pr ivi le g e s, pa st, pr e se nt, or futur e , a ri sin gout of

or in co nn e c tio n w ith the oper ation of the business; and (26) a 2007 Chevrole t Corvette. Mo nic a wa s “ awa

rded the fo llo wi nga s h e r s ole and se pa ra te pr op e rt y , a nd the hu sb and

is div e ste d o f a ll r ig ht, tit le , inte re st, and c la im a nd in a nd to t hat pr op e rt

y :” (1) rea l property

descr ibed as “ L ot 264, Un it I V, Whispering O aks Subdivis ion, Wi lson County ”; (2 ) a ll h ou se ho ld f

ur nit ur e , f ur nis hings, fi xtur e s, g oo ds , a rt ob je c ts, collectibles, a

ppliances, a

nd equipment in her possession or subject to h e r s ole c on tr ol;04

- 08

- 00 62 7- CV

1 ... B i l l T i l l er wa s ap p o i nt ed b y the t ri al c o urt i n t he d i vo rce act i o n t o ap p rai se t wo busi ness es owned by t he co m m uni t y : M ast er M ari ne, Inc. , and G C N T rucki ng.

- 4- (3) all clothing, jewelr y , and other

persona l effe cts in her possession or su bje c t to he r s ole c on tr ol; (4 ) a ll s ums of

c a shin h e r p os se ssi on

or su bje c t to he r s ole c on tr ol; (5) 50% of Ge org e’s r etireme nt benef its in Tim Smoot Elec tric 401(K) , arisingout of Geor g e’s e mploy ment with Tim S mo o t as o f May 2, 20 07 ; (6) a 2004 Chevrole t Tahoe; (7) $15,000, which was paid and ac cepte d on May 4, 2007, and $10,000 payable by

Geor g e on the dat e the trial court sig ned the de cre e; and (8) “$125,000 which is due by Geor g e Carl Noyes to Monica Noyes on the day he close s on the house located at: L ot 265, U n it I V, Whis pe ri ng

Oaks S ub di vi si on , W il so n C ou nt y , T ex as. Th e sam e sha ll car ry 7% intere st on any

monies remainingu n p ai dfrom and a fter November

1, 2007.” (9) “Husba

nd shall reimburse Ms. Noyes 1/2 of mon[ ]i es re funded by B ill Ti lle r and fu

rn ish to w if e c op ie s o f a

ny and a ll d oc ume nts supplied to him by

Bill Tiller.” 1 The de cre e also orde red G eorg e to a ppear at Monica’s la

wy er’ s office on J uly

1, 2007, and execute a specia l w arr anty deed for the proper ty awa rded to Monica . Simi larly , Monica wa s order ed to appea r at Ge org e’s attorney ’s offic e and e x ecute a special war ranty deed f

or the prope rty

awa rded to Georg e. Finally , the “Court expressly rese rve[d] t he rig ht to make orde rs nec essar y to clarify and enfor ce this dec ree .” In Fe bruar

y 2008, Monica filed a

petition to enfor ce the decr ee, or in the alternative, to clarify the decr ee. In her amende d petition, f iled on April 21, 2008, Monica reque sted that t h e t ri al court enfor ce the divorce d ec re e, al leg ing that Georg e had f ailed to comply

with the divorce decr ee04

- 08

- 00 62 7- CV

- 5- beca use he ha d failed to sell the home located at L ot 265, Unit IV, Whis peringOaks Subdivision, Wil son County , Texas, and had f ailed to pay her $125,000 plus interest due. In the alter native, if the trial court c onsidered the terms of the decr ee to not be sufficie ntly specific to enforc e, Monica asked the trial cour

t to clarify the terms of the decr ee by including la

ng uag e that the home be kept in “show
c on dit ion ,” tha

t th e y ard be ma inta ine d, that th e ho me be va c ant, that th e ho us e be lis te d at f a ir
mark e t va lue , th at any re a so na ble of fe r be a c c e pte d, and

that th e ho me be pla c e d into r e c e ive rs hip
and so ld b y the re c e ive r. Mo nic a

a lso a lle ged th at Geo rg e ha d f a ile d to g ive Mo nic a

c op ie s o f a ll documents g iven to him by Bill Tiller as or dere d in the decr ee. In response , Geor g e filed a plea to the jurisdiction, c laiming that the trial cour t h ad no jurisdiction to modi fy

the dec ree . After

a hea ring on Geor g e’s plea to the jurisdiction, the trial court found that the de cre e is unambiguous and gra n t ed t he plea to the jurisdiction. The trial cour t then
e n te r e d f in d in g s o f f a c ts an d c o n c lu s io n s o f la

w . In it s f in d in g s o f f

a c t, th e tr ia l c o urt s tate d

th at “ [n ]o testimony or documentar

y evidenc e was prese nted by [Moni ca Noy es] or [Georg e Noyes].” The trial court then ma de the f

ollowing c onclusions of law: 1. In the abse nce of an ambiguity , this court has no jurisdiction to enter a cla rifying or der. 2
. The c o urt h a s n o a u th o r it y to c h an g e , ame n d , mo d if y , o r a lt e r the d e c r e e a b s e n tanamb i g u i ty. 3. Th e div or c e de c re e is n ot a mbi g uo us , a

nd therefo re thi s c ourt

is without jurisdiction. 4
. Th e d iv o r c e d e c r e e d is p o s e d o f a ll r igh t, ti tl e , an d inte r e s t in the proper ty involved. 5. Ab se nt an

a lle g atio n o f a

statut or y or c omm on law gro un d to va c ate an ar bitrator’s a

war d, a cour

t is withoutjurisdi ct i o n to reviewthe awa rd.04

- 08

- 00 62 7- CV

2 ... A t r i al cour t ca n r ender a c l ar i f y i ng order s et t i ng f

ort h s peci f

i c t er ms t o enf

orce com pl i anc e wi t h t he ori gi nal d ivisio n o f p ro p e rty if

it fi n d s tha t t h e o rig ina l fo rm o f the d ivisio n o f p ro p e rty is no t sp e c ifi c e n o u g h to b e e n fo rc e a b le b y c o n te m p t. T EX . F AM . C O D E A NN . § 9
. 0 0 8 (b) (V ernon 2 0 0 6 ).

- 6- 6. Petitioner Monica Noy es b ea rs the burde n of alleg ing f acts that aff irmatively show the trial court has subject matter jur isdiction. M OT I ON T O E N FORC E D ECR EE /P LEA TO THE J URI S DI CT I ON On appeal, Monica a

rgues that the trial c ourt err ed in g rantingGeor g e’s plea to the jurisdiction and dis missing her petition for lack ofjurisdiction. A plea to the jurisdiction is a dilatory plea, the pur

pose of whic h is to defeat a ca use of action based on la ck of subjec t matter jurisdiction without r eg ard to the merits of the c laim. Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue , 3 4 S. W. 3 d 5 4 7 , 5 5 4 ( T e x. 2000). The pla intiff bear s the burden of alleg ing f

acts that a ffirmatively

show the trial cour

t has subject matter jur isdiction. Tex. Ass’n of B us. v. Tex. Air Control Bd. , 8 5 2 S. W. 2 d 4 4 0 , 4 4 6 ( T e x. 1993). B eca

use the que stion of subject matter jurisdiction is a leg al question, we r eview the trial court’s r uling on a plea to the jurisdiction unde r a de novo standard of revie w. Se e Ma

y he w v . To wn of S un ny v ale , 964 S.W .2d 922, 928 (Tex. 1998). A cour t that rende rs the dec ree of divorce reta ins the power to e nforc e the pr operty division. SeeT EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 9.002 (Ve rnon 2006). Pursuant to the Family Code, a c ourt may

rende r fu rt he r o rd e rs to enforce the division of property made in the de cre e o f d i v orce to assist in t he implementation of

or to clarify the prior or der. See id. § 9
. 0 0 6 ( a ) ( e mp hasis added)
. 2 Howeve r, a court may

not amend, modi fy , alter, or chang e the division of prope rty made or approve d in the decr ee of divorce
. See id. § 9.007(a) . Her e, Monica argues that in her pe tition, s he wa s reque sting th atth e t ri al co ur t e n f

o r c e o r cl ar i fy

th e p ro p erty

d i v i s i o nm ad e i nth e d ec re e. Inco n tra s t , Ge o rge argues that Monica w as askingthat the cour t modify the prope rty

division m ade in the de cre e. F ir st, we no te that th e div or c e de c re e sp e c if ic a lly state s th e fo llo wi ng :04

- 08

- 00 62 7- CV

- 7- The Court finds that t he parties have entere d into a written agree ment as conta ined in this decree by

virtue of havingapprove d this decre e as to both for m and substance
. To the extent permitted by law, the parties stipulate the agree ment is enforc eable as a c on tr a c t. Thus, the construc tion of the dec ree is gove rned by the law of contra cts. See B ishop v. Bishop , 74 S.W .3d 877, 879 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, no pet.) (e x plaining that beca use t he dec ree was ag reed t o by

both parties, its construction is g overne d by law of c ontrac ts). When construingan ag ree ment incident to divor ce, we must look to the intentions of the parties a s they are manifested in the written agree ment. Id. at 879-80. I f a c ontrac t is unambi g uous, we will g ive ef fec t to the intention of the parties a s expressed in the agree ment. Chandler v. Chandler , 991 S.W .2d 367, 396 (Tex. Ap p . — E l Pa s o 1 9 9 9 , p e t. d e n ie d )
. We mu s t ma k e e v e r y att e mp t to h ar

mo n iz e a ll the pr ov isi on s wi thi n the a g re e me nt, and e a c h p ro vis ion

mus t be c on sid e re d w ithre fe re nc e to t he wh ole ag ree ment. Id. Second, we note that under the sec tion tit led “Prope rty to Wi fe,” the dec ree states the fo l l o wi n g: I T I S ORDERED AND DECREED that the wife, MONI CA NOYES, is awa rded the fo llo wi nga s h e r s ole and se pa rate pr op e rt

y , and the hu sb and is d ive ste d o f a ll r ig ht, title, interest and cla im in and to that property : . . . W-8 $1 25 ,0 00 .0 0 Whic h is du e by GE OR GE CA RL

NO YE S to MO NI CANO YE S on the day he closes on the house located at: L ot 2 6 5 , Un i t I V, W h i s p er i n g Oa k s S u

b d i v i s i o n , W i l s o nC ounty , TX. The sam e s h al l car

ry 7% intere st on any

monies remainingunpaid from and af ter Nove mber 1, 2007. (empha sis added). Monica argues that this provision of the dec ree is m i s s i n g t h e t ime by which Ge or g e mus t se ll the ho us e in or de r to tri g g e r he r pay me nt of $1 25 ,0 00 . G e or g e re sp on ds that he is not require d to pay Monica $125,000 until he decides t o sell his home. Thus, Georg e is arguing that04

- 08

- 00 62 7- CV

3 ... W e not e t hat we mus t deci de whe t her t he decr ee r equi r ed G eorg e t o s el l t he hous e a nd p ay M oni ca $ 1 2 5 , 0 0 0 wi t hi n a reas o nab l e p eri o d of t i m e o r whet her i t m erel y requi red G eo rge t o pa y M o ni ca $ 1 2 5 , 0 0 0 i n t he event he sol d t he ho use, be cause if th e d e c ree did requir e G eo rge t o s el l t he ho m e and pa y M o ni ca $ 1 2 5 , 0 0 0 wi t hi n a r eas onabl e per i od of

t i me, t hen M oni ca’ s r eques t t o t he t r i al cour t was one f or e nf orce ment , an d t he tri al c our t ha d ju risd ic tio n . O n the o the r h a n d , i f t h e d e c re e m e re ly re q u ire d G e o rg e to p a y M o n ic a $ 1 2 5 ,0 0 0 in t h e e v e n t h e so ld his ho m e, t hen M o ni ca’ s reque st t o t he t ri al co urt was, i n f act , one t o m o d i f

y t he d ecree, and t he t ri al co urt wo ul d no t have ju risd ic tio n to c o n sid e r h e r re q u e st.

4 ... W e no t e G eo rge’ s rel i ance o n Bi s hop v

. Bi s hop , 7 4 S.W
. 3 d 8 7 7 (T ex. A p p . — Sa n A nt o ni o 20 0 2 , no p et
. ), w h ic h he c la im s is d isp o sitive o f t h is c a se . H o w e v e r, Bi s hop w a s c le a rly a c a se tha t o rd e re d o n e sp o u se to b e p a id “in t he event ” t he ho m e was s o l d
. In Bi s hop , t he d ecree st at ed t he f o l l o wi ng: 1 . T h e p ro p e rty c a n b e so ld a t a n y ti m e m u tu a lly a g re e d to b y th e p a r ti e s a n d f o r a p ric e m u tu a lly ag r eeabl e t o [G regory and Shell ey]
. 2 . [S h e lley] sh a ll h a v e the e x c lus ive rig h t t o e n jo y the us e a n d p o sse ssio n o f t h e p re m ise s. A ll m a inte n a n c e a n d re p a irs ne c e ssa ry t o k e e p the p ro p e rty in i ts p re se n t co n d iti o n sh a ll b e p a id e q u a lly (50 / 50) by t h e par t i es , i n cl u di n g bu t n ot l i mi t ed t o t h e i n s u r an ce pol i cy cov er i n g br ea k down and r epai r s of

ce r t ai n i t ems i n t he hous e. 3
. T he net s al es proc eed s (defi ned as t he gross s al es pri ce l ess co st of sal e and f ul l pa y m ent o f

any m o rtgag e ind eb t ed ne ss o r l i en s o n the p ro p erty) sha l l b e d i st ribu t ed as f o l l o w s: At an y t i me f

r om M ay 20, 1998, u n t i l M ay 20, 2006 a n y n et s al es pr oce eds s h al l be d i st ri b ut ed eq ual l y (50 / 5 0 ). A f t er M ay 2 0 , 20 0 6 net s al es proc eed s sh a ll b e d i vi d ed pro p o rt i o nat el y t o t he amou n t o f

ye ar s pa i d of

t h e mor t g ag e by e ac h pa r t y a f t er M ay 20, 1998. For ex ampl e, i f t h e h ou s e wa s s ol d i n Aug u s t of 2010 t h e pr opor t i on wo ul d be 4/12 (33 1/3 % ) f

o r [ G regory] and 8/12 (66 1/6% ) f o r [ She l l ey]
. I d. at 87 9 (emp hasi s ad d ed ).

- 8- the dec ree did not order him to sell his home in order to pa y Monica $125,000, but only that “in the event” he sold his home, he would have to pay Monica $125,000. 3 In revie wingthe dec ree as a whole, it is clear that the $125,000 pay ment awa rded to Monica
was a substantial portion of her se ttlement and that “on the day he close s on the house” c ontemplated that the house in question would be sold. Thus, we do not find Ge org e’s a rgument that the provision
was a n “in the eve nt” clause persua sive. 4 T h i r d , g e n e r a l l y, w h e r e n o t i m e o f p e r f o r m an c e i s s t at e d

i na c o n tr a c t , th e l aww i l l i mp l y a reasonable time. Edmonds v. Gray , N o . 1 2

- 0 7
- 0 0 2 5 8

- C V , 2 0 0 8 W L5 4 1 6 7 3 , at* 6 ( T e x. Ap p. —T yle r 20 08 , n o p e t.) ; Che rc o Pro ps ., In c . v . La w, S

na k ar d &Ga mb ill , 985 S.W .2d 262, 266 (T e x. Ap p. —F or

t Wor th 1 99 9, no pe t.) . H e re , e ve n th ou g h th e de c re e did no t sp e c if ic a lly state a

date04

- 08

- 00 62 7- CV

5 ... W e al so no t e t hat G eo rge clai m s t he t ri al c o urt c anno t ord er t he sal e o f t he ho m e i n que st i o n, be cause t he home i n que s t i on was hi s s epar at e pr op er t y . H owever , G eorg e di d not appeal f r om t he di vor ce decr ee.

- 9- by wh ic h G e or g e wa s r e qu ir e d to c los e on the ho me and

pay Mo ni ca $1 25 ,000 , th e law i mpl ie s a
rea sonable t i m e fo r Ge o rge to do so withi n the dec ree . Thus, Monica’s r equest that the tria l court
e nf or c e the de c re e be c a

us e Ge or g e ha d not s old

the ho us e and

pa id h e r $ 12 5, 00 0 w ith in a re a so na ble amount of time was within the court’s jurisdiction. In askingthat the trial cour t enforc e the de cre e’s requirem en t t h at Geor g e sell the house a nd pay her $125,000 w ithin a rea sonable pe riod of time, M o n i c a w a s s e e k i n ge n f

o r c e m e n t , n o ta

m o d i f i c at i o no f th e d e c r e e ’ s d i v i s i o no f

p r o p e rty. What is reasonable depends on the fac ts a nd circ umstances as they exis ted at the date of the contra ct. Edmonds , 2 00 8 WL 54 16 73 , at *6 ; Cherco, 985 S.W .2d at 266. Fa ctors include the nature and cha rac ter of the action and the difficulty of ac complishing it, as we ll as the purpose of the ag ree ment. Edmonds , 2 00 8 WL 54 16 73 , at *6 ; Pearcy v. Envtl. Conservancy of Austin & Cent. Tex., Inc. , 814 S.W .2d 243, 2 46 (Tex. App.—Austin 1991, writ denied). Where the mater ial fac ts are undisputed, the question of what is a rea sonable time is a matter of law. Edmonds , 2008 WL541673,
at *6 ; Pearcy , 814 S.W .2d at 246. Thus, in Edmonds v. Gray , wher e the divorce decr ee ordere d a prope rty to be sold but failed to give a timetable f

or the sale of the prope rty , the Tyler Court of Appe als implied a rea sonable time. Edmonds , 2008 WL 541673, at *6. In deter mining what time is reasonable , the cour t examined the rele vant facts and circumstance s on the date of t he divorce decree , the purpose of t he agree ment, the nature and cha

rac ter of se lling the pr operty , and the diff iculty in acc omplishi ngthe sale. Id. Her e, of c ours e , n o s uc h f

a c ts w e re de ve lop e d b e low be c a us e the tr ia l c ourt wa s of

the op ini on

that it did not have jurisdiction. 504

- 08

- 00 62 7- CV

- 10- In h e r pe tit ion to en fo rc e , Mon ic a a lso c la ime d that Ge or g e ha d not g ive n he r a co py of a ll documents provided to Ge orge b y Bill Tiller as or dere d in the decr ee. T he trial c ourt clea rly had
su bje c t matte r j ur isd ic tio n to e nf or c e the de c re e ’s pr ov isi on that G e or g e g ive Mo nic a a c op y of a ll documents provided to him by Bill Tiller. Thus, the t rial court had jurisdiction to consider whe ther Geor g e had c omplied with this provision of the dec ree . Finally , in his brie f, Geor g e reque sts that we awa rd him damag es bec ause Monica has filed
a fr ivo lou s a

pp e a l. We de ny

his re qu e st. C ONCL US I ON We r e ve rs e the tr ia l c ourt ’s or de r g ra nti ng the ple a

to t he jur isd ic tio n a

nd re mand the c a us e to the trial court f

or proc eeding s consistent with this opi nion. Kar en Ang elini, J ustice