## Facts

- Katherine DeGroot and Richard DeGroot divorced in Texas state court after Katherine filed a petition for divorce (filed October 25, 2005).
- The parties reached a written agreement dividing their community property; the trial court approved the agreement and incorporated it into a Final Decree of Divorce signed July 19, 2006.
- Under Texas procedure, absent a timely post-judgment motion, the deadline to seek modification or a new trial (and thereby extend plenary power) was August 18, 2006 (30 days after the decree).
- Richard mailed a “motion for clarification” on August 18, 2006, but the clerk file-stamped it on August 23, 2006.
- The clarification request sought changes including shifting a few thousand dollars of debt (out of total debt of $138,717) to Katherine.
- After August 18, 2006, the parties jointly asked the court to appoint an “arbitrator” to resolve expected post-divorce disputes, and they agreed the arbitrator’s decision would be non-binding.
- On January 24, 2007, the trial court signed a new Final Decree of Divorce that incorporated the arbitrator’s order and substantially changed the property division from the July 19, 2006 decree.
- Katherine appealed, arguing the trial court’s power over the July 19 decree had expired and that the January 2007 decree was an improper post-judgment change rather than a permissible clarification. She also challenged related rulings tied to enforcement and a QDRO.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court’s plenary power over the July 19, 2006 divorce decree expire before the court signed the January 24, 2007 decree, making the later decree void?
2. Did Richard’s motion for clarification—mailed by the deadline but file-stamped after it—timely extend plenary power?
3. Even if post-judgment action was allowed, did the January 24, 2007 decree go beyond clarification and instead materially change the property division?
4. If the January 24, 2007 decree was void, what effect did that have on related enforcement and QDRO rulings?

## Decision

- The court of appeals held the trial court’s plenary power over the July 19, 2006 decree expired on August 18, 2006 because no timely post-judgment motion extending plenary power was filed.
- Richard’s motion for clarification, file-stamped August 23, 2006, did not extend plenary power.
- The January 24, 2007 decree was not a permissible clarification; it substantially altered the property division in the July 19, 2006 decree and therefore exceeded the court’s limited authority after plenary power expired.
- The January 24, 2007 decree was void; the appellate court vacated it and reinstated the July 19, 2006 decree.
- Because the parties agreed the “arbitration” was non-binding and the only decree incorporating it was void, the court did not need to decide complaints directed at enforcement of the arbitration order.
- The trial court’s orders denying Katherine’s petition for enforcement of the July 19, 2006 decree and denying her motion to enter a QDRO were reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with the reinstated July 19, 2006 decree.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court’s plenary power over a final judgment generally expires 30 days after the judgment is signed unless extended by a timely post-judgment motion.
- A post-judgment motion must be timely filed to extend plenary power; a motion file-stamped after the deadline does not extend plenary power.
- After plenary power expires, a divorce court may issue orders to clarify a decree to aid enforcement, but it may not change the substantive division of property.
- A post-plenary order that materially changes the property division is void.
- When a later decree is void, the prior valid decree remains in effect, and rulings that depend on the void decree may require reversal and remand.

## Conclusion

The Dallas Court of Appeals vacated the January 24, 2007 divorce decree because the trial court’s plenary power over the July 19, 2006 agreed decree had expired and the later decree materially changed the property division rather than merely clarifying it; the court reinstated the July 19, 2006 decree and reversed and remanded related enforcement and QDRO rulings for further proceedings under the reinstated decree.


DeGroot v. DeGroot, 260 S.W.3d 658 (2008)