McGehee v. Epley

I have no quarrel with the majority’s disposition of appellant’s fourth point of error. I must respectfully dissent with their holding of appellant’s points of error numbers two and three. It is when the majority declares that “the clarification order amounted to nothing more than en*310forcement of the decree previously entered” that I must disagree with them.

Clearly, under the terms of the divorce decree, appellant was not ordered to pay appellee. The decree also contained no direction to effect a division of appellant’s retirement benefits, where to pay, when to pay and in what manner. Under…