Zeolla v. Zeolla

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that in light of the uncertainty created by spouse’s early retirement at age 57, the consent judgment contained a latent ambiguity
• holding that Section 9.008 “deals with clarification in aid of contempt enforcement”
• holding trial court did not give a clarification order retroactive effect when it ordered payment of benefits already accrued under the agreement by the parties
• noting that any other interpretation would make court powerless to order payment of past due obligations and would conflict with case law and Family Code
• upholding clarification order because “[o]n the record presented to us, we do not perceive that [husband’s] extant obligations to pay retirement benefits were altered”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).