Motion for Clarification in Texas

What Is a Motion for Clarification?

Background

“A court may clarify an order rendered by the court in a proceeding under Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 157.421 if the court finds, on the motion of a party or on the court's own motion, that the order is not specific enough to be enforced by contempt.” (In re S.D. (2011) No. 02-10-00221-CV, at *1 citing Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 157.421 [West 2008].)

However, the code prohibits a court from substantively changing the provisions of an earlier order with a clarification order. (Id. § 157.423.) A substantive change occurs when judicial reasoning and determination is used to correct an error. (Dickens v. Willis (1997) 957 S.W.2d 657, 659.)

Clarification Due to Clerical Error

A clerical error is one that results from an inaccurate recording of the court's decision. (In re S.D., supra, citing Dickens v. Willis (1997) 957 S.W.2d 657, 659.) Whether an error is clerical or judicial is a question of law. (Id.) However, before the trial court addresses this question, it must first make the factual determination of “whether it previously rendered judgment and the judgment's contents.” (Id., quoting Escobar v. Escobar (1986) 711 S.W.2d 230, 232.) The Appellate court reviews the trial court's factual determination for legal and factual sufficiency. (Id.) Proof of a clerical error must be “clear, satisfying, and convincing.” (Id.)

How to Structure the Motion

A request for a clarification order is distinct from a request to hold a party in contempt. (In re A.C.P. (2018) No. 14-17-00896-CV, at *3-4 citing Tex. Fam. Code manner. § 157.424 (West 2014) [stating “The court may render a clarification order before a motion for contempt is made or heard, in conjunction with a motion for contempt, or after the denial of a motion for contempt.”).

“The procedures applicable to filing a motion for clarification are the same as those for filing a motion for enforcement.” (See id. § 157.422.)

Reasoning for Clarification

“Because the law does not require that a final judgment be in any particular form, whether a judicial decree is a final judgment must be determined from its language and the record in the case. Since timely perfecting appeal (as well as filing certain post-judgment motions and requests) hangs on a party's making this determination correctly, certainty is crucial.” (Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp. (2001) 39 S.W.3d 191, 195.)

Abatement and Clarification

In deciding whether to abate an appeal, “[i]f the appellate court is uncertain about the intent of the order, it can abate the appeal to permit clarification by the trial court. But if the language of the order is clear and unequivocal, it must be given effect despite any other indications that one or more parties did not intend for the judgment to be final.” (Lehmann, supra, 39 S.W.3d at 206.)

Limits on Clarification for Divorce Decrees

“Clarifying orders may more precisely specify the manner of carrying out the property division previously ordered so long as the substantive division of the property is not altered.” (In re Marriage of McDonald (2003) 118 S.W.3d 829, 832.) Accordingly, a proper clarification order is consistent with the prior divorce decree. (McKnight v. Trogdon-McKnight (2004) 132 S.W.3d 126, 130.)

Also for this reason, “[c]larification . . . requires a finding, express or implied, that the original form of the division of property lacks sufficient specificity to be enforced by contempt.” (In re Marriage of McDonald, supra, 118 S.W.3d at 832.) “If a divorce decree is unambiguous, the court has no authority to alter or modify the original disposition of property.” (Id.; accord McKnight, supra, 132 S.W.3d at 130.) “Whether the decree is ambiguous is a question of law subject to de novo review.” (McKnight, 132 S.W.3d at 131.)

The Court’s Decision

In deciding whether a lower court's clarification based on a clerical error should be overturned, ”[if] the error was not a flaw in judicial reasoning, but a mistake in reducing the judgment to writing [and] [n]o evidence of probative force supports the conclusion that the clarification effected a substantive change [the court may hold] that the error in the original decree was clerical and that the clarification to correct this error did not substantively change the divorce decree.” (Dickens v. Willis (1997) 957 S.W.2d 657, 660.)

In clarifying the limits of a clarification order, it is well established that “[a] clarification order is analogous to a judgment nunc pro tunc in that it cannot substantively change a final order.” (In re Marriage Ward (2004) 137 S.W.3d 910, 913 citing In re Dryden (2001) 52 S.W.3d 257, 263.)

Documents for Motion for Clarification in Texas

Sort By

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF JUAN MONTENEGRO VS. HOPE MONTENEGRO document preview

Petition - FOR POSTDIVORCE DIVISION OF PROPERTY WITH EXHIBIT "A"

8 pages

Electronically Filed 1/10/2024 11:44 AM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Alondra De La Rosa NO. F-3856-21-F HOPE MONTENEGRO …

Case Name IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF JUAN MONTENEGRO VS. HOPE MONTENEGRO