wording in decree

[wldcherry1]

Bob and Betty were divorced in TX after 9 years 2 months of marriage.  Betty was awarded a portion of Bob's Military retirement pay.  

Soldiers Sailors Relief act states that the courts must have jurisdiction over the service member by

a) living in the legal state of residence (home of record)
b) Residence within the state other than because of military assignment
c) consent to jurisdiction

Texas law states that post divorce pay increases constitute separate property.

Questions

1.  In the divorce decree it states "This court has jurisdiction over Bob.  The residence of the service member is in Texas, other than because of military assignment."  The real reason for jurisdiction is that Bob was the Petitioner (reason c).  Is this just a typo or can Bob say the court did not have jurisdiction to divide his military pay?

2.  The divorce decree also states "It is ordered that since Betty is entitled to a percentage interest in any cost of living or other increases in the United States Army disposable retired pay..." Bob has been promoted and done extra years since the divorce.  Bob is not disputing the cost of living but the fact that he is making more money due to promotion and extra years.  This is his sole and separate property.  Did the TX court error with the statement "other increases"?

3.  Should Bob request a clarification order or wait to see if Betty will take him to court because she does not agree with the amount?

[socrateaser]

>1.  In the divorce decree it states "This court has
>jurisdiction over Bob.  The residence of the service member is
>in Texas, other than because of military assignment."  The
>real reason for jurisdiction is that Bob was the Petitioner
>(reason c).  Is this just a typo or can Bob say the court did
>not have jurisdiction to divide his military pay?

Once a party makes an appearance, either in court or by filing a document in the court, for ANY reason, other than to challenge jurisdiction, that party permanently waives any further right to challenge jursidiction.

>
>2.  The divorce decree also states "It is ordered that since
>Betty is entitled to a percentage interest in any cost of
>living or other increases in the United States Army disposable
>retired pay..." Bob has been promoted and done extra years since
>the divorce.  Bob is not disputing the cost of living but the
>fact that he is making more money due to promotion and extra
>years.  This is his sole and separate property.  Did the TX
>court error with the statement "other increases"?

Based on your facts, I would say that the court's statement beginning with "since Betty..." is a statement of law that contradicts TX public policy. You could move to set aside this portion of the judgment, however, the TX court may fall back on the time limitation for challenging a final judgment, either by appeal or reconsideration. I don't know that time limit, but if your judgment/decree has been entered for more than an year, I'd say you may be out of luck.

If I were going to challenge this, I would try to research other cases where TX courts have overruled judgments/decrees on public policy bases, as a means of persuading the court to make such an order in this case. But, I wouldn't count much on your chances.

>3.  Should Bob request a clarification order or wait to see if
>Betty will take him to court because she does not agree with
>the amount?

Depends on how long it's been -- if it's less than the TX statute of limitations on challenging a final judgment, then move to partially set aside, otherwise wait.