McGehee v. Epley
| Decision Date | 19 October 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. C-2351,C-2351 |
| Citation | 661 S.W.2d 924 |
| Parties | Benny W. McGEHEE, Petitioner, v. Mary McGehee EPLEY, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Stewart, Hemmi & Pennypacker, Kirk Patterson, San Antonio, for petitioner.
Hattie E. Briscoe, San Antonio, for respondent.
Benny W. McGehee appeals from an order partitioning the civil service retirement benefits of his former wife, Mary McGehee Epley, and clarifying an award to her of a portion of his military retirement benefits in a prior divorce decree rendered in 1973 by the 131st District Court of Bexar County. McGehee instituted this lawsuit in the 73rd District Court of Bexar County seeking partition of Epley's civil service benefits. These benefits were not partitioned in the 1973 divorce. Epley filed a cross-action in the 73rd District Court asking the court to render an order clarifying that portion of the 1973 divorce decree which awarded her "one-half ( 1/2) of all retirement benefits due and owing respondent, Benny McGehee, for his services in the United States Air Force." The trial court awarded the relief sought.
The court of appeals held that the trial court had erred in its calculation of McGehee's interest in Epley's civil service benefits and reversed and rendered on this point. It affirmed the judgment of the trial court with respect to the clarification order. 655 S.W.2d 305 (Tex.App.1983).
On application for writ of error to this Court, McGehee urges that the court of appeals erred in holding that the trial court had jurisdiction to enter an order modifying a final judgment from another district court. We agree.
The divorce decree rendered by the 131st District Court became final in 1973. At that time the court lost authority to modify the judgment, except as provided for by law. TEX.R.CIV.P. 329b. The court of appeals held that the 73rd District Court was not precluded from entering the clarification order by this rule, however, reasoning that the order rendered was not one which modified the judgment but was an order which did nothing more than provide for enforcement of the decree previously entered, and was therefore permissible. This was error.
The order rendered by the 73rd District Court was, as a matter of law, more than a mere clarification consistent with the prior judgment. It affirmatively imposed an obligation to pay where no such obligation previously existed. Further, the order required McGehee to pay Epley one-half of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Reinauer, Matter of
...after the government or anyone else takes a bite from it.3 We are not unmindful of the Supreme Court's suggestion in McGehee v. Epley, 661 S.W.2d 924 (Tex.1983) that a later inclusion of the term "gross" could be a substantive change. Yet, we conclude that the El Paso Court of Appeal in Dec......
-
In re Owsley
...in the decree of divorce.” Tex. Fam. Code § 9.007(a); see also Id. § 9.007(b); DeGroot, 260 S.W.3d at 663; see also McGehee v. Epley, 661 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. 1983) (finding that a court was without jurisdiction “modify” a final divorce decree); Troiani v. Troiani, 2016 WL 4702685, at *4 (......
-
Dechon v. Dechon, 08-94-00125-CV
...marriage between the Dechons. The implementation of the statutory amendments was muddied by the Supreme Court opinion in McGehee v. Epley, 661 S.W.2d 924 (Tex.1983), which dealt with a trial court's clarification order entered prior to the effective date of Subchapter D, and addressed the t......
-
Johnson v. Ventling
...of its plenary jurisdiction, a trial court retains its inherent power to clarify or enforce a divorce decree. See McGehee v. Epley, 661 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex.1983) (per curiam). Thus, a trial court may enter a clarifying order to enforce compliance with an insufficiently specific divorce dec......