Court Opinion

ID: 9950003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 06:12:05.391198+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:34:51.352966
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Opinion Filed March 7, 2024

                                       In The
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-22-01235-CV

                  STEPHANIE DIANNA ELLIOTT, Appellant
                                 V.
                        CORI RUSSELL, Appellee

               On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court
                            Dallas County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. DF-22-09101

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
               Before Justices Molberg, Pedersen, III, and Goldstein
                         Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III
      Appellant Stephanie Dianna Elliott appeals the November 1, 2022 Final

Divorce Decree (the Decree) ending her marriage to appellee Cori Russell. In two

issues, Elliott contends the trial court erred (1) by failing to include in the Decree

sufficient detail concerning how property awarded to Elliott would be turned over to

her from Russell, and (2) by not allowing Elliott to offer evidence concerning

property she owned prior to marriage. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm

the trial court’s judgment.
       Elliott and Russell were married November 10, 2018. When Elliott was

arrested in April 2021, the parties agreed to end their marriage.1 During the course

of the divorce litigation, they agreed on a division of their property, and Russell

placed the property to be awarded to Elliott in a unit at a Storage King facility.2 The

Decree was signed November 1, 2022. Elliott contends that Russell has refused to

turn over the keys to the storage unit to Elliott’s family. Moreover, because the unit

is in Russell’s name, Storage King will not assist Elliott in obtaining her property.

Elliott asks us to order Russell to comply with the Decree or to remand and instruct

the trial court to give detailed orders to Russell and to Storage King for the transfer

of Elliott’s property.

       Both parties appeared pro se below, and Elliott filed this appeal pro se. Russell

did not file a brief in this Court. Accordingly, we accept as true the facts stated by

Elliott in her brief. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(g).

       In her first issue, Elliott complains that the trial court did not include in the

Decree sufficient detail concerning how her property would be turned over. The

Decree includes this typed language, which is initialed by the trial judge:

       [Elliott] shall be responsible financially for the storage unit
       [specifically identified by Storage King address and unit number]
       beginning November 1, 2022. [Elliott’s] family shall pick up the keys

   1
        Elliott was sentenced to 108 months’ confinement on April 22, 2022. Accordingly, she has
participated in this litigation while serving that sentence.
   2
      The property awarded to Elliott included a GE dryer, a set of cream-colored bedroom furniture, an
LG television, and a Bluetooth speaker.
                                                 –2–
        for the unit from [Russell] as well as notify Storage King regarding
        what will happen to [Elliott’s] property on or before November 5, 2022.

        We disagree with Elliott’s argument that these instructions were not

sufficiently detailed to provide for the exchange of her property to her family from

Russell. The Decree gave dates (on or before November 5) for Elliott’s

representative to pick up the keys from Russell, whose address, phone number, and

email are all contained in the Decree. The Decree also gave the dates for Elliott to

begin paying for the storage unit (November 1) and for her family to notify Storage

King regarding whether the property would be moved or would remain in storage

(on or before November 5). Stated succinctly, the Decree was specific enough for

reasonable people to understand their obligations. See generally Ex parte Chambers,

898 S.W.2d 257, 260 (Tex. 1995) (decree should set forth terms of compliance in

clear, specific and unambiguous terms so person charged with obeying decree will

readily know exactly what duties and obligations are imposed upon her).

        Elliott asks us to reverse the Decree. She did not, however, file a post-trial

motion challenging any part of the Decree. She does not complain that the divorce

was granted or that the property was divided contrary to the parties’ agreement.3

Indeed, it appears that Elliott’s complaint is not truly with the trial court or the

Decree but with Russell’s refusal to comply with the Decree. But this Court cannot

    3
      Although Elliott’s second issue mentions property she purchased before marriage, the record contains
the parties’ property division agreement, which the Decree follows. Elliott did not identify any separate
property in the trial court. Nor does she address—beyond the bare statement of this second issue—any other
property in her brief. Accordingly, we do not address the issue of separate property or Elliott’s second issue.
                                                     –3–
enforce the Decree. That power lies in the trial court that rendered the Decree. See

TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 9.02 (“The court that rendered the decree of divorce or

annulment retains the power to enforce the property division”). Through a suit to

enforce a divorce decree—pursuant to Chapter 9, Subchapter A of the Family

Code—the trial court may render further orders that assist in the implementation of

or clarify the court’s prior order, id. § 9.006(a), or that specify more precisely the

manner of effecting the property division previously made, id. § 9.006(b). See

Chakrabarty v. Ganguly, 573 S.W.3d 413, 417 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2019, no pet.).

      We discern no error in the Decree. We overrule Elliott’s first issue and affirm

the trial court’s judgment.

                                           /Bill Pedersen, III//
221235f.p05                                BILL PEDERSEN, III
                                           JUSTICE

                                         –4–
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                   JUDGMENT

STEPHANIE DIANNA ELLIOTT,                      On Appeal from the 254th Judicial
Appellant                                      District Court, Dallas County, Texas
                                               Trial Court Cause No. DF-22-09101.
No. 05-22-01235-CV           V.                Opinion delivered by Justice
                                               Pedersen, III. Justices Molberg and
CORI RUSSELL, Appellee                         Goldstein participating.

       In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial
court is AFFIRMED.

      It is ORDERED that appellee CORI RUSSELL recover her costs of this
appeal from appellant STEPHANIE DIANNA ELLIOTT.

Judgment entered this 7th day of March, 2024.

                                         –5–