CourtListener opinion 4076691

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

ACCEPTED
 13-15-00150-CV
 THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
 CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
 8/4/2015 5:45:39 PM
 CECILE FOY GSANGER
 CLERK

 No. 13-15-00150-CV

 FILED IN
 13th COURT OF APPEALS
 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
 CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS
 THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
 8/4/2015 5:45:39 PM
 CORPUS CHRISTI- EDINBERG CECILE FOY GSANGER
 Clerk

TRACIE MARIE SCHEFLLER F/KJA
TRACIE MARIE PARSON, APPELLANT,

 v
PAUL MICHAEL PARSON, APPELEE.

 On Appeal from the
 8
 81 T Judicial District Court of Wilson County, Texas
 Trial Court. Cause No. 10-10-0579-CVW

 APPELLEE'S REPLY BRIEF

 Respectfully Submitted,

 '/11-
 ason J. ak
 Stat ar o. 24042933
 . z J ob, LLC
 15 . Travis, Suite 333
 San Antonio, Texas 78205
 Telephone: 210-226-4500
 Telecopier: 210-226-4502
 Email: jjakob@diazjakob.com
 Attorneys for Paul Michael Parson, Appellee

 ORAL ARGUMENTS REQUESTED
 IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Appelee's Counsel APPELEE

Jason J. Jakob Paul Michael Parson
DIAZ JAKOB, LLC
 115 East Travis Street, Suite 333
San Antonio, Texas 78205
(210) 226-4500
(21 0) 226-4502 (fax)
jjakob@diazjakob.com

Appelant's Counsel APPELLANT

Kirk Dockery Tracie Marie Sheffler
Donaho & Dockey, P .C. f/k/a Tracie Marie Parson
P.O. Box 459
Floresville, Texas 78114
(830) 393-2700
(830) 393-3029 (fax)

 -i-
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

 PAGE
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL ..................................................................... -i-

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. -ii-

INDEX OF AUTI-IORITIES ............................................................................................ -iv-

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................................ -vi-

ISSUES PRESENTED .................................................................................................... -vii-

ABBREVATIONS & RECORD REFERENCES ......................................................... -viii-

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ......................................................................................... -1-

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES ......................................................................... -3-
 A. Trial court did not Error in granting Appellee's Motion to Dismiss for Lack
 of Judgment ......................................................................................... -3-
 B. The Corrected Divorce Decree With DRO Was Entered Into By
 Agreement and lacks ambiguity ............................................................................. -8-
 C. The Trial Court Did Not Abuse its Discretion in Failing to Grant the Relief
 Requested By Appellant to Clarify the Valuation of Military Retirement in the
 Decree of Divorce ........................................................................... -1 0-
 D. STANDARD OF REVIEW ...................................................................... -12-

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ -13-

PRAYER ................................................................................................................ -13-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ....................................................................................... -14-

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .............................................................................. -14-

APPENDIX ............................................................................................................. -16-

 -11-
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES PAGE

Edascio, L.L.C. v. NextiraOne L.L.C., 264 S.W.3d 786, 796 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st
Dist.] 2008, pet. filed) ........................................................................ -9-, -9-

EXXCONMOBIL Corp. v. Valence Operating Co., 174 S.W.3d 303, 309 (Tex.App.--
Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet denied.
filed) ........................................................................................... -2-, -4-

Garcia v. Alvarez, 367 S.W.3d 784-88 (Tex. App-Houston [14th Dist.],
no pet.).) .......................................................................................... -8- 9-

Garner v. Fidelity Bank, N.A., 244 S.W.3d 855, 859 (Tex.App.--Dallas 2008, no pet.). -10-

Gary E. Patterson & Associates, P.C. v. Holub, 264 S.W.3d 180, 197 (Tex.App.--
Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. denied) ........................................................ -10-

Hagen v. Hagen, 282 S.W.3d 899,907 (Tex. 2009).) ..................................... ,-7-,-8-

ISG State Operations, Inc. v. National Heritage Insurance Company, 234 S.W.3d 711,
719 (Tex.App.--Eastland 2007, pet. denied) ................................................. -9-

lAC, LTD. v. Bel Helicopter Textron Corp., 160 S.W.3d 191, 203 (Tex. App. -Fort
Worth 2005, no pet.)........................................................................ -7-

Microsoft C01p. v. Manning, 914 S.W.2d 602, 607 (Tex. App.- Texarkana 1995, writ
dism'd)... ... ... ... ... ... . .. . .. . . . ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . .. . ... . .. ... ... ... ... .. . ... ... ... .. . ... -12-

National Family Care Life Ins. Co. v Fletcher, 57 S.W.3d 662, 667-668 (Tex. App.-
Beaumont 2001) (Distinguished on other grounds) ......................................... -6-,-8-

Padilla. v. La France, 907 S.W.2d 454, 461 (Tex. 1995) .................................. -4-

Pearson v. Fillingim, 322 S.W.3d 361,363 (Tex. 2011) ........................ ,-7-, -9-,

Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding)......... -6-,-11-

STATUTES & RULES

 -111-
 TEX. R. CIV. P. 11 .................................................................................................. -2-,-4-

TEX. FAM. CODE. §9.007 ................................................... -5-,-7-,-8-,-9-,-10-,-11-,-13-

TEX. FAM. CODE. §9.103 ............................................................................................. -11-

TEX. FAM. CODE. §9.104 ..................................................................................... -5-,-11--

10 U.S.C. 1408 ........................................................................... -11-,-12-

 -iv-
 ISSUES PRESENTED

1). The trial court did not error in granting Appellee's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction.

2.) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting Appellee's Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Jurisdiction.

3.) The trial court ruled properly and within its discretion in dismissing the relief
requested by Appellant to clarify the valuation of the military retirement in the decree of
divorce and domestic relations order

 -v-
 ABBREVIATIONS & RECORD REFERENCES

Abbreviations:

Paul Michael Parson. (Appellee) .......................................................Mr. Parson

Tracie Marie Sheffler (Appellant) .................................................. Mrs. Sheffler

Han. Russell Wilson ............................................. Judge Wilson or the Trial Com1

Record References:

Cites to the Court's Record are in the form of (CR [page#]).
Cites to any document included in the Appendix attached hereto are in the form of (App.
[appendix tab no.]).

 -vi-
 No. 13-15-00150-CV

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
 THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
 CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBERG

TRACIE MARIE SCHEFLLER F/K/A
TRACIE MARIE PARSON, APPELLANT,

 v
PAUL MICHAEL PARSON, APPELEE.

 On Appeal from the
 81 ST Judicial District Court of Wilson County, Texas
 Trial Court. Cause No. 10-10-0579-CVW

TO THE HONORABLE THE THRITEENTH COURT OF APPEALS:
 Appellee, herein Paul Michael Parson, submits this his Reply Brief in opposition

of Appellee's Brief and in support of the Trial Court's order dismissing the Appellee's

Petition to Clarify the Division of Military Retirement and in support of affirming the

Trial Courts dismissal for lack ofjurisdiction.

 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A. History

 On or about January 6, 2015 Appelant, TRACIE MARIE (PARSON) SHEFFLER

filed an Petition to CoiTect or Amend Domestic Relations Order for Military Retirement

in district court claiming the following:

 -1-
 1) Parties entered into an infmmal discussions, not Alternative Dispute

Resolution, and Appellant purports that such Rule 11 Agreement was filed with the court
(CR 92-94) (APP 1). 1 The Corrected Decree of Divorce nor the Domestic Relations

Order in no manner incorporate the Rule 11 Agreement.

 2) Approximately three months later, on or about May 24, 2011, an amended

Final Decree and Divorce was submitted and entered before the trial court along with a

Domestic Relations Order signed by the parties and the attorneys and by the court but

made retroactively effective as March 1, 2011 but signed by the court on May 24, 2011.

 3) A Motion to Modify Parent-Child Relationship was filed by Appellee on
October 31, 2013 and Temporary Orders were entered on February 1, 2014. A Motion

and Order granting mediation was November 18, 2014 by the trial court.

 4) After an unsuccessful mediation Appellant filed a Petition to Correct or

Amend Domestic Relations Order For Military Retirement.

 5) After Respondent's January 6, 2015, pleading was filed, Petitioner filed a

Petitioner's Plea to the Jurisdiction, Motion to Dismiss and Special Exceptions.

 6) On January 14, 2015 the Honorable Judge Russell Wilson granted a order

re-setting the matter for arguments on Appellant (Respondent) and Appellee (Petitioner)

competing motions and final trial with agreement of counsel due to a death in Appellant
counsel's family to February 9, 2015.

1
 Note that the Rule 11 Agreement which has been produced to Appellant's Brief\It is