Tex. Codes » Family Code · TITLE 1. THE MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIP · SUBTITLE C. DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE · CHAPTER 9. POST-DECREE PROCEEDINGS
Texas Codes

Tex. Fam. Code § 9.101 (2026)

Jurisdiction For Qualified Domestic Relations Order

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 9.101. JURISDICTION FOR QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the court that rendered a final decree of divorce or annulment or another final order dividing property under this title retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to render an enforceable qualified domestic relations order or similar order permitting payment of pension, retirement plan, or other employee benefits divisible under the law of this state or of the United States to an alternate payee or other lawful payee.

(b) Unless prohibited by federal law, a suit seeking a qualified domestic relations order or similar order under this section applies to a previously divided pension, retirement plan, or other employee benefit divisible under the law of this state or of the United States, whether the plan or benefit is private, state, or federal.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 7, Sec. 1, eff. April 17, 1997.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: Araujo v. Araujo, 493 S.W.3d 232 (Tex. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Araujo v. Araujo, 493 S.W.3d 232 (Tex. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “QDRO when — as here — the trial court that rendered a final decree of divorce did not enter a qualified domestic relations order or similar order permitting payment of benefits to an alternate payee or other lawful payee; See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 9.101 (a), 9.103 (West 2006),…”
Gainous v. Gainous, 219 S.W.3d 97 (Tex. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “" TEX. FAM.CODE ANN. § 9.101(a) (Vernon 1998).”
Bart Dalton v. Carol Dalton, 551 S.W.3d 126 (Tex. 2018). “TEX. FAM. CODE § 9.101. The statute goes on to obligate courts to "liberally construe this subchapter to effect payment of retirement benefits that were divided by a previous decree.”
Marshall v. Priess, 99 S.W.3d 150 (Tex. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “She claims that, if no plan administrator has complained that the QDROs are defective, Texas Family Code section 9.101 does not give a trial court the authority to amend qualified orders that were enforceable when rendered.”
McKnight v. Trogdon-McKnight, 132 S.W.3d 126 (Tex. App. 2004). “-El Paso 1995, no writ); see also Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 9.101 (Vernon 1998) (providing that court which rendered final decree of divorce dividing property retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to render enforceable QDRO permitting payment of pension, retirement plan, or other…”
Chavez v. McNeely, 287 S.W.3d 840 (Tex. App. 2009). “See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 9.101 (a) (Vernon 2006) (“[T]he court that rendered a final decree *845 of divorce .”
In Re the Marriage of Jones, 154 S.W.3d 225 (Tex. App. 2005). “See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 9.101 (Vernon 1998).”
Potts v. Potts, 790 A.2d 703 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2002). “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 9.101(a) (West 2000) (emphasis supplied).”
Bart Dalton v. Carol Dalton (Tex. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “101 provides that the court that rendered the decree of divorce retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to render an enforceable qualified domestic relations order permitting payment of retirement plan benefits to an alternate payee. TEX.”
Jesus F. Vela v. Kathleen Mae Vela (Tex. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “3 See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 9.101 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.”
Shahram Shakouri v. Fariba Badiyan Shakouri (Tex. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 9.101 , 9.103. Accordingly, no statute of limitations applies to a request to enter a QDRO.”
Eva Ramirez v. Eddie Ramirez, Jr. (Tex. App. 2019). “See Tex. Fam. Code § 9.101 (stating that trial court that rendered final decree of divorce retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to render enforceable QDROs).”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— Tex. Fam. Code § 9.101(a) — 4 cases
Gainous v. Gainous, 219 S.W.3d 97 (Tex. App. 2006). “" TEX. FAM.CODE ANN. § 9.101(a) (Vernon 1998).”
Potts v. Potts, 790 A.2d 703 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2002). “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 9.101(a) (West 2000) (emphasis supplied).”
Paul Jones v. Teresa Jones (Tex. App. 2021).
Sharon H. Windham v. William M. Windham Jr. (Tex. App. 2022).
— Tex. Fam. Code § 9.101(b) — 1 case
Araujo v. Araujo, 493 S.W.3d 232 (Tex. App. 2016). “QDRO when — as here — the trial court that rendered a final decree of divorce did not enter a qualified domestic relations order or similar order permitting payment of benefits to an alternate payee or other lawful payee; See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 9.101 (a), 9.103 (West 2006),…”
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.