Suit for Clarification of Prior SAPRC Order / Divorce Decree: Who has standing to bring suit to clarify the original order?

RIGHT TO SEEK CLARIFICATION OF PRIOR ORDER DEPENDS ON PARTY STATUS AND STANDING

The Family Code allows a party to seek clarification of an order in prior suit affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR) when lack of clarity has become an issue and enforcement is impossible. But who is a party? In a recent case, the grandparents were not involved in the parent's original divorce action (as intervenors), but acquired access to the child in a subsequent SAPCR modification proceeding. The Dallas Court of Appeals found that the grandparents did not qualify as "parties" and thus had no standing to seek clarification of the divorce decree provision governing payment of college tuition.

From the opinion:

With respect to statutory standing, the family code provides that “[a] court may clarify an order rendered by the court in a [suit affecting the parent-child relationship] 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.” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 157.421(a) (Vernon 2008).

Thus, it appears that only “a party” has standing to request clarification of an order in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship. So the question becomes whether Grandparents were “parties” within the meaning of section 157.421(a).

In construing a statute, we start with the plain and ordinary meaning of its words. City of San Antonio v. City of Boerne, 111 S.W.3d 22, 25 (Tex. 2003). If its meaning is unambiguous, we generally enforce it according to its plain meaning. Id. Regardless of whether a statute is ambiguous, we may consider certain extrinsic matters in interpreting it, such as the object the legislature sought to attain, the common law or former statutory provisions, and the consequences of a particular construction. PACCAR Fin. Corp. v. Potter, 239 S.W.3d 879, 882 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.).

“Party” has two ordinary meanings in the legal context: (1) a participant in a transaction, such as a party to a contract, or (2) one by or against whom a lawsuit is brought. Black's Law Dictionary 1154 (8th ed. 2004); accord Doe v. Roe, 600 S.W.2d 378, 379 (Tex. Civ. App.-Eastland 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (“Texas courts have long held that a 'party' is one by or against whom a suit is brought while all others who may be incidentally or consequently affected [are] 'persons interested' but not parties.”).

We give the word “party” as used in section 157.421(a) its ordinary meaning and conclude that Grandparents do not qualify as “parties” under either definition of the word. First, they were not parties to the agreed divorce decree that they seek to have clarified. Second, nothing in our record indicates that they were parties to the litigation at the time the agreed divorce decree was signed by the trial court. It appears that they became parties only when they filed a “motion to modify in suit affecting the parent-child relationship,” which constituted a new cause of action and proceeding under the family code. See generally Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 156.003 (requiring service of citation on all parties whose rights and duties may be affected by a suit for modification); id. § 156.004 (“The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure applicable to the filing of an original lawsuit apply to a suit for modification under this chapter.”); Bilyeu v. Bilyeu, 86 S.W.3d 278, 280 (Tex. App.-Austin 2002, no pet.) (“Under the Family Code's statutory scheme, the legislature designated a suit to modify a SAPCR as a new cause of action. . . . [T]he original decree remains final and a new final order results from the modification proceeding.”).

We conclude that section 157.421 confers standing to seek clarification only on persons that are parties to the order that is to be clarified or parties to the proceeding in which that order was signed. Grandparents do not allege that they satisfy either criterion, nor does anything in the record show that they satisfy them. Thus, we conclude that they did not have standing to seek clarification. We vacate the trial court's order insofar as it rules on their requests for clarification and dismiss this action as to them.

SOURCE: Appellate opinion in 05-07-01712-CV (decided 2/6/09) (Dallas Court of Appeals vacates the trial court's order on the motion for clarification of obligation to pay for college to the extent the order pertains to the grandparents' requests for clarification, and dismisses all claims brought by grandparents)