Legal Opinion · Dissent

Jenkins v. Jenkins

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided June 10, 1993No. 09-92-298 CVPublished

1DissentBurgess, Justice

I respectfully dissent. The trial judge and the majority hold that appellee’s retirement benefits were awarded to him in the 1984 divorce decree by virtue of the language: “[a]ny and all wearing apparel, jewelry and other personal effects in the possession of Respondent or subject to his control”. While the retirement account may have been subject to his control, to say it is “wearing apparel, jewelry or other personal effects” is ludicrous. What the majority wants the residual clause to say is: “Respondent is awarded all community property not specifically awarded Petitioner”. It simply does…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Mooney v. GlasspoolCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1980

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API