Full Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-24-00299-CV ________________ NANCY MARGUERITE MAXWELL, Appellant V. STEVEN JOSEPH MAXWELL, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 3 Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 06-07-07074-CV ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In one issue, Nancy Marguerite Maxwell challenges an order of the trial court that clarified a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”) with the exact amount that the Divorce Decree awarded her from her former husband, Steven Maxwell’s, retirement annuity. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm the trial court’s order. 1 Background Nancy and Steven married on September 16, 1984, and on November 6, 1984, Steven began working as an air traffic controller through the FAA where he participated in the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). They divorced on September 29, 2006, and Steven continued his employment with the FAA until his retirement in October 2021. In the Agreed Final Decree of Divorce, Nancy was awarded fifty percent of Steven’s retirement benefits. The Decree stated: W-6. A portion of Steven[]’s retirement benefits in FAA & H arising out of Steven[]’s employment with the FAA as of August 31, 2006, that portion being fifty (50%) percent of the community portion, together with any interest, dividends, gains, or losses on that amount arising since that date and more particularly defined in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [(“QDRO”)] signed by the Court on the day this Agreed Final Decree of Divorce is signed. On October 19, 2006, the trial judge signed the Domestic Relations Order, which stated: [Steven] and [Nancy] were married on September 16, 1984 and divorced on September 29, 2006 (“Valuation Date”). ... 5. [Nancy] is entitled to FIFTY AND NO/100 PERCENT (50.00%) of [Steven’s] self-only monthly annuity under the FERS, calculated as of Valuation Date, unreduced for any option that may be selected by [Steven]. When cost-of-living allowances (COLAs) are applied to [Steven’s] retirement benefits, the same COLAs apply to [Nancy’s] share. 2 Following his retirement, Steven began receiving his retirement annuity, and he received notice that Nancy was receiving a portion beyond what the QDRO awarded her. In his Petition to Enter Post-Divorce Amended Court Order Acceptable for Process (COAP) Federal Employees Retirement System (“Petition”), filed in September 2022, Steven stated that the FERS now requires that a QDRO be referred to as a COAP.1 He alleged that despite the language in the QDRO, Nancy was receiving a portion of his annuity earned after the Valuation Date. According to the Petition: e. Upon [Steven]’s retirement and commencement of his pension, it was discovered that the interpretational guidelines of the FERS had been changed, such that an award of a percentage of a benefit, even if defined as of the certain Valuation Date, would still reflect compensation earned after such date, to the date of actual retirement, thereby establishing a benefit for Nancy [] that exceeded the FERS interest awarded by the Court. Steven alleged that the correct calculation of Nancy’s monthly portion was $1,761.00, and he requested that the trial court approve and sign an amended order that specified the exact amount Nancy was entitled to receive. The amended order stated: 5. [Nancy] is entitled to an amount equal to One Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty One and 00/100ths Dollars ($1,761.00) of [Steven]’s self-only monthly annuity under the FERS, unreduced for any option that may be selected by [Steven]. When cost-of-living allowances 1 In this opinion, we will continue to refer to the document signed by the trial judge on October 19, 2006, as the QDRO, unless otherwise noted, as the title of the document is Domestic Relations Order. 3 (COLAs) are applied to [Steven]’s retirement benefits, the same COLAs apply to [Nancy]’s share. Steven attached the proposed Amended Court Order Acceptable for Processing (COAP) Federal Employees Retirement System. Nancy generally denied the allegations in Steven’s Petition, but later filed her First Amended Response, Special Exception, Affirmative Defense, and Plea in Abatement to Steven Maxwell’s Petition to Enter Post-Divorce COAP. According to Nancy, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) approved the QDRO and scheduled the commencement of her monthly payments of $3,472.99, and a retroactive payment of $32,577.87 for benefits distributed to Steven from November 1, 2021, through November 31, 2022. She stated that the Agreed Final Decree of Divorce and the QDRO are final and that Steven’s collateral attack violates section 9.007 of the Texas Family Code because it would amend, modify, alter or change the division of property in the Final Decree and QDRO. On February 21, 2024, Steven filed his First Amended Petition to Enter Post- Divorce Amended Court Order Acceptable for Processing (COAP) Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), Petition for Clarification of Property Division of Agreed Final Decree of Divorce, Petition for Clarification of Property Division of Domestic Relations Order; Petition for Claim of Unjust Enrichment and Restitution; and Petition for Money Had and Received. He alleged that under the FERS, Nancy should receive $1,761.00 monthly, calculated as 50% of the benefit to 4 the Valuation Date, and he requested the trial court sign the proposed order for submission to the FERS. Steven also requested clarifying orders regarding his retirement benefits and brought a claim of unjust enrichment and restitution for the overpayment that he alleged Nancy received from the FERS. He attached as exhibits the Agreed Final Decree of Divorce, Domestic Relations Order, and Amended Court Order Acceptable for Processing (COAP) Federal Employees Retirement System. He later filed a second amended petition with identical exhibits. On March 18, 2024, a bench trial on the merits began. Counsel for Steven explained to the trial judge that the dispute involved the formula that OPM used to determine Nancy’s portion. Counsel stated that Nancy’s portion should be based on the value of Steven’s retirement on the Valuation Date, but Nancy’s portion includes his fifteen years of employment post-divorce. Counsel argued that Steven’s salary increased almost every year, and OPM’s formula resulted in Nancy receiving a portion of Steven’s post-divorce salary increases. At trial, Steven testified along with Richard Johnson, the owner and employee of QDRO Services. Nancy did not call any witnesses. On March 22, 2024, the trial court issued its ruling and granted Steven’s request for an amended court order acceptable for processing that would reflect that Nancy’s portion was $1,767.00. The trial court denied the request for clarification of the property division in the Agreed Final Decree of Divorce, awarded Steven 5 $33,599.70 for the overpayments made to Nancy, and denied each party’s request for attorney’s fees. On May 9, 2024, the trial court signed the Order Granting Petition to Enter Amended Court Order Acceptable for Processing (COAP) for Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) that granted Steven’s request to clarify and amend the QDRO and stated that Nancy was entitled to $1,767.00 of Steven’s FERS annuity. The Order added that Nancy had been overpaid $33,599.70 of the FERS annuity by the OPM and it awarded the amount of the overpayment to Steven with 8.5% compounded annual interest. The trial court also executed an Amended Domestic Relations Order that stated that Nancy was entitled to $1,767.00 of Steven’s monthly FERS annuity and $586.00 of Steven’s Supplemental FERS annuity. On September 10, 2024, the trial court issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that included the following: Findings of Fact ... 18. Steven Maxwell received correspondence from OPM, dated December 7[,] 2022, which provided their method of calculating Nancy[]’s portion of his retirement benefits, and state the following: By court order your former spouse’s marital share of your retirement benefit is 50% of 262 months of service during the marriage divided by 443 months of Federal service of 29.57% of your retirement benefits. ... 6 Conclusions of Law ... 31. The express language of the parties’ Final Decree of Divorce awards Nancy [] 50% of “the community portion” of Steven Maxwell’s retirement benefits valued as of August [31], 2006. 32. In applying the Domestic Relations Order signed on October 19, 2006, OPM used Steven Maxwell’s post-divorce salary increases and post-divorce accrual of retirement benefits to calculate Nancy[]’s portion of [] Steven Maxwell’s retirement benefits, and this portion of his benefits were his separate property. ... 34. The Domestic Relations Order signed on October 19, 2006 divests Steven Maxwell of separate property retirement benefits which were earned and accrued as a result of continued employment and salary increases post-divorce. 35. The Court finds that clarification is necessary of the Domestic Relations Order to effectuate the property division in the Agreed Final Decree of Divorce. 36. The Court finds that an Amended Domestic Relations Order should include the following language: Former Spouse is entitled to $1,767.00 of Member’s self-only monthly annuity under FERS, unreduced for any option that may be selected by Member. 37. The Second Amended Domestic Relations Order accurately reflects the property division as set out in the Agreed Final Decree of Divorce. 38. The Court finds that Nancy [] was over-paid a total sum of $33,599.70 over the course of 30 months by OPM in retirement benefits which were awarded to Steven Maxwell in the divorce. 7 This appeal followed. In her sole issue, Nancy argues that the trial court lacked authority to enter the Amended Court Order Acceptable for Processing. According to Nancy, she was awarded a percentage of Steven’s retirement, and not a specific dollar amount, in order to receive any pay increase or cost of living adjustment. Standard of Review We review the trial court’s ruling on a post-divorce motion for enforcement or clarification of a divorce decree under an abuse-of-discretion standard. See Hollingsworth v. Hollingsworth, 274 S.W.3d 811, 815 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.); In re Marriage of McDonald, 118 S.W.3d 829, 832 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, pet. denied); see also Sigee v. Sigee, No. 09-21-00335-CV, 2023 WL 3114659, at *3 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Apr. 27, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrary or unreasonably, or without any reference to guiding rules and principles. Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam). If a trial court makes specific findings of fact and conclusions of law after a bench trial and a reporter’s record is before the appellate court, the findings will be sustained if there is evidence to support them, and the appellate court reviews the legal conclusions drawn from the facts to determine their correctness. Fuhrman v. Fuhrman, No. 09-24-00155-CV, 2026 WL 1025550, at *9 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Apr. 16, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citation omitted). A trial court’s findings of fact 8 entered in a bench trial have the same force and dignity as a jury’s answers to jury questions. See Anderson v. City of Seven Points, 806 S.W.2d 791, 794 (Tex. 1991); Fuhrman, 2026 WL 1025550, at *9. “In an appeal from a bench trial in which the trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law, appellants should challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting specific findings of fact rather than directing such a challenge generally at the judgment as a whole.” Fuhrman, 2026 WL 1025550, at *9 (citing Thompson & Knight LLP v. Patriot Expl., LLC, 444 S.W.3d 157, 162 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.); Carrasco v. Stewart, 224 S.W.3d 363, 367 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2006, no pet.)). “‘If the appellant does not challenge the trial court’s findings of fact, when filed, these facts are binding upon both the party and the appellate court.’” Cahill v. Cahill, No. 09-20-00206-CV, 2022 WL 318452, at *7 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Feb. 3, 2022, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (citation omitted); see also Carrasco, 224 S.W.3d at 367). Analysis Section 9.007 of the Texas Family Code provides: (a) A court may not amend, modify, alter, or change the division of property made or approved in the decree of divorce or annulment. An order to enforce the division is limited to an order to assist in the implementation of or to clarify the prior order and may not alter or change the substantive division of property. (b) An order under this section that amends, modifies, alters, or changes the actual, substantive division of property made or approved in a final decree of divorce or annulment is beyond the power of the divorce court and is unenforceable. 9 Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 9.007. The Texas Supreme Court has held that when reading both 9.007(a) and 9.008(b) together, trial courts are “without authority to enter a QDRO altering the terms of the decree.” Shanks v. Treadway, 110 S.W.3d 444, 449 (Tex. 2003) (citing Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 9.007(a), 9.008(b)) (other citations omitted). A QDRO “cannot change the substantive division of property made in the original decree.” Id. The court can enter a clarifying order “to enforce compliance with an insufficiently specific decree,” but it “‘may not amend, modify, alter, or change the division of property made or approved in the decree of divorce.’” Id. (citing Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 9.007(a), 9.008(b)). A QDRO “may more precisely specify the manner of carrying out the property division previously ordered,” but only “so long as the substantive division of the property is not altered.” Vaughn v. Vaughn, No. 09-04- 00030-CR, 2005 WL 1115965, at *6 (Tex. App.—Austin May 12, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citation omitted). Any QDRO that alters the decree’s property division is “void.” See Gainous v. Gainous, 219 S.W.3d 97, 108 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied). At trial, the trial judge questioned Johnston about his calculation regarding Nancy’s portion. Johnston testified that the formula used by OPM calculates the benefit based on the date of retirement despite case law specifying that any increase in retirement benefits post-divorce are separate property of the participant. Johnston 10 explained that if Steven retired on the Valuation Date, Nancy would be entitled to $1,767.00, the accrual of Steven’s highest three years of salary and years of service. Johnston also provided the formula currently used by OPM, the Taggart formula, and the formula that should be used based on the date in the Divorce Decree, the Berry formula. The Taggart formula calculates Nancy’s 50% benefit based on the date of Steven’s retirement and total months of service on Steven’s retirement date for a total of $3,473.00. The Berry formula calculates Nancy’s 50% benefit based on the August 31, 2006, date in the Divorce Decree and Steven’s years of service as of August 31, 2006, for a total of $1,767.00. The document with both the Taggart and Berry formulas were admitted as evidence. On cross-examination, Johnston explained that the QDRO cannot contradict the plain language of the Divorce Decree, and OPM regulations cannot trump the plain language or intent of the Divorce Decree. Here, the trial court considered the evidence and determined that OPM did not properly follow the instructions of the QDRO pertaining to Nancy’s portion. Pursuant to sections 9.008 and 9.1045(a) of the Texas Family Code, the trial court had the authority to clarify a QDRO that needs to be clearer or to clarify terms to effectuate the division of property ordered by the court. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 9.008, 9.1045(a). Nancy failed to present sufficient evidence at trial or a clear argument as to how the monthly payment of $3,472.99 was correct or that Steven’s 11 calculation regarding his value of his retirement account as of August 31, 2006, was incorrect. Nancy also failed to challenge any specific factual findings, which the evidence supports. See Fuhrman, 2026 WL 1025550, at *9; Cahill, 2022 WL 318452, at *7; see also Carrasco, 224 S.W.3d at 367. Accordingly, those findings are binding on this Court. See Cahill, 2022 WL 318452, at *7; Carrasco, 224 S.W.3d at 367. Having reviewed the evidence at trial and the arguments presented on appeal, we conclude that the trial court had authority to clarify the QDRO and did not abuse its discretion in clarifying and amending the QDRO with the exact amount that the Divorce Decree awarded Nancy from Steven’s annuity. See Sigee, 2023 WL 3114659, at *3; Hollingsworth, 274 S.W.3d at 815; McDonald, 118 S.W.3d at 832. We overrule Nancy’s issue. Conclusion Having overruled appellant’s issue on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s order. AFFIRMED. W. SCOTT GOLEMON Chief Justice Submitted on August 21, 2026 Opinion Delivered August 27, 2026 Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ. 12