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

Tex. Fam. Code § 9.102 (2026)

Procedure

✓ laws through the 89th Legislature (2025)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 9.102. PROCEDURE. (a) A party to a decree of divorce or annulment may petition the court for a qualified domestic relations order or similar order.

(b) Except as otherwise provided by this code, a petition under this subchapter is governed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure that apply to the filing of an original lawsuit.

(c) Each party whose rights may be affected by the petition is entitled to receive notice by citation and shall be commanded to appear by filing a written answer.

(d) The proceedings shall be conducted in the same manner as civil cases generally.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2003–2024 · leading case: Reiss v. Reiss, 118 S.W.3d 439 (Tex. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Reiss v. Reiss, 118 S.W.3d 439 (Tex. 2003). · cites it 2× “After Edwin retired in 1998, Gloria sought to enforce the decree's division of pension benefits by moving for a Qualified *441 Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"), see Tex. Fam.Code § 9.102, that would entitle her to fifty percent of the total benefits earned under the pension…”
Gainous v. Gainous, 219 S.W.3d 97 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006). · cites it 2× “in accordance with the member's election." [12] Brenda also argues that the QDRO's DROP provisions are void because "there is no evidence" that whoever petitioned for the QDRO obtained service by citation on the other party.”
Shanks v. Treadway, 110 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. 2003). “See Tex. Fam.Code § 9.102. In his motion, George proposed that the court calculate the value of both the defined benefit and defined contribution plans as of the date of divorce in awarding Kenda her twenty-five percent interest.”
Araujo v. Araujo, 493 S.W.3d 232 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2016). “However, Miguel also acknowledges that after a trial court’s plenary power over a divorce case has expired, a party may ask the court to sign a QDRO pursuant to the terms of Texas Family Code section 9.102, which requires a party seeking a post-judgment QDRO to file a petition…”
Carroll Ned McElwrath v. Valerie McElwrath, No. 03-14-00487-CV, 2016 WL 1566624 (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 13, 2016). · cites it 6× “1 Ned challenged the order on the due process ground that he had not been served with citation pursuant to the provisions of the Texas Family Code. See Tex. Fam. Code § 9.”
Cynthia Paola Bowles v. Hal Frank Bowles, No. 08-23-00311-CV (Tex. App.—El Paso Apr. 26, 2024). · cites it 3× “She contended that the trial court’s plenary power expired 30 days after it signed the final divorce decree, and because Hal did not properly petition the trial court for a QDRO under Texas Family Code § 9.102, the QDRO exceeded the court’s power.”
Stephen Wellington v. Carrie Lynn Wellington, No. 04-16-00707-CV (Tex. App.—San Antonio Jan. 24, 2018). “See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 9.102, 9.103 (West 2006); Araujo v.”
In re Babatunde Aogo, 591 S.W.3d 734 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019). “” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 9.102 (d); see Tex.”
Brenda Joyce Gainous v. Thomas Earl Gainous, No. 01-04-00427-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 21, 2006). “Brenda also argues that the QDRO's DROP provisions are void because "there is no evidence" that whoever petitioned for the QDRO obtained service by citation on the other party.”
Tex. Fam. Code § 9.102(c): 2 cases
Gainous v. Gainous, 219 S.W.3d 97 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006). “in accordance with the member's election." [12] Brenda also argues that the QDRO's DROP provisions are void because "there is no evidence" that whoever petitioned for the QDRO obtained service by citation on the other party.”
Carroll Ned McElwrath v. Valerie McElwrath, No. 03-14-00487-CV, 2016 WL 1566624 (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 13, 2016). “1 Ned challenged the order on the due process ground that he had not been served with citation pursuant to the provisions of the Texas Family Code. See Tex. Fam. Code § 9.”
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.