Court Opinion

ID: 9767160
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:11:35.784884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:29.109786
License: Public Domain

ESQUIVEL, Justice,
dissenting.
I have no quarrel with the majority’s disposition of appellant’s fourth point of error. I must respectfully dissent with their holding of appellant’s points of error numbers two and three. It is when the majority declares that “the clarification order amounted to nothing more than en*310forcement of the decree previously entered” that I must disagree with them.
Clearly, under the terms of the divorce decree, appellant was not ordered to pay appellee. The decree also contained no direction to effect a division of appellant’s retirement benefits, where to pay, when to pay and in what manner. Under the terms of the “Order of Clarification,” the court, by ordering the appellant to pay, when to pay and in which manner to pay, has unequivocally placed upon him an affirmative obligation not previously imposed. Cf. Ex parte Trick, 576 S.W.2d 437, 439 (Tex.Civ.App. — San Antonio 1978, no writ). See Ex parte Wagley, 530 S.W.2d 609, 611 (Tex.Civ.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1975, no writ); see Ex parte Filemyr, 509 S.W.2d 731, 733 (Tex.Civ.App. — Austin 1974, no writ). In my opinion the “Order of Clarification” is not merely curative of uncertainty in the divorce decree, but rather substantially changed the terms of the earlier judgment. Cf. Ex parte McKinley, 578 S.W.2d 437, 438 (Tex.Civ.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1979, no writ); cf. Schwartz v. Jefferson, 520 S.W.2d 881, 888 (Tex.1975); Hargrove v. Insurance Investment Corp., 142 Tex. 111, 176 S.W.2d 744, 747 (1944). By virtue of the provision of Tex.R.Civ.P. 329b(e) and the rule as correctly stated by the majority that “... a court is without authority to change provisions in a trial judgment relating to property adjudication ...,” I would sustain appellant’s point of error number three. My disposition of this particular point would be dispositive of appellant’s point of error number two.
Accordingly, I would reverse and render the portion of the judgment concerning the clarification order.