Sec. 157.421. CLARIFYING NONSPECIFIC ORDER. (a) A court may clarify an order rendered by the court in a proceeding under this title if the court finds, on the motion of a party or on the court's own motion, that the order is not specific enough to be enforced by contempt.
(b) The court shall clarify the order by rendering an order that is specific enough to be enforced by contempt.
(c) A clarified order does not affect the finality of the order that it clarifies.
Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, Sec. 1, eff. April 20, 1995.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
38
cases (
12 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case:
In Re the Marriage of Ward, 137 S.W.3d 910 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004).
In Re the Marriage of Ward, 137 S.W.3d 910 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004).
· cites it 2× “” Tex. Fam.Code ANN. § 157.421 (Vernon 2002).”
In Re Alexander, 243 S.W.3d 822 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008).
“See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 157.421 (Vernon 2002); see also In re A.”
In Interest of Hamilton, 975 S.W.2d 758 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1998).
· cites it 2× “See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. §§ 157.421, 157.423 (Vernon 1996).”
In Re Dryden, 52 S.W.3d 257 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2001).
“Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 157.421 (Vernon 1996).”
Glass v. Williamson, 137 S.W.3d 114 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004).
“; Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 157.421 (Vernon 2002) (court may clarify order not specific enough to be enforced by contempt).”
Lundy v. Lundy, 973 S.W.2d 687 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1998).
“Because the court did not render judgment modifying child support, we overrule points of error one, four and five. We affirm the trial court’s judgment denying modification of the child support order and reverse and render as to the judgment “clarifying” the divorce decree.”
McLaurin v. McLaurin, 968 S.W.2d 947 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1998).
“Similarly, an ambiguous order in a family law case may be clarified under Tex Fam. Code Ann. § 157.421 (Vernon 1996) if an order is not specific enough to be enforced by contempt.”
Tex. Fam. Code § 157.421(a): 8 cases
Tex. Fam. Code § 157.421(b): 2 cases
In Re Rfg, 282 S.W.3d 722 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.