CA affirmed. Without passing on the issue of res judicata, H is collaterally estopped from revisiting the issue of the child's parentage as H didn't raise that issue during the divorce proceeding.

Comment - Whether by B of R or another proceeding, once a divorce decree is signed whereby H is found to be the kid(s)'s father, the issue can't be re-litigated. Also see Thompson (572/761) which holds that a decree finding that a child was born during the marriage is equivalent to a finding that H is the child's father.

Reversed. The $64,000.00 was not a retirement benefit or anything roughly equivalent thereto. The severance package was purely a discretionary payment given to induce employees to quit, thus the $64,000.00 was community property. As such the community property was not divisible per Berry as that relates only to pension plan divisions.

The CA grants the mandamus saying:

1. The 4/6/01 order is a nullity as it was signed outside the T/C's plenary time period.

2. A T/C has no authority to grant W a monetary judgment and then limit her ability to levy on same to collect the judgment even if the limitation is set forth in the 2/21/01 order.

3. The 4/6/01 order isn't a judgment nunc pro tunc.

4. The 4/6/01 order isn't a clarifying order because it attempts to substantially change the 2/21/01 order by denying W the right to attempt to collect the $90,000.00 judgment.

Comment - Heck I've drawn and had signed judgments whereby no execution shall be had if the judgment debtor pays off the judgment timely per an installment plan set forth in the judgment. Is this invalid? Probably not because it was done per the agreement of the parties. If a T/C has to grant W a monetary judgment for c/s arrearage (§157.263) but can't restrict W's post judgment collection efforts, what can the T/C do if it wants to protect H's assets from seizure? Merely a suggestion. Normally the greatest motivation for H to pay the judgment is jail time contempt if he doesn't pay and imposition of sentence is within the T/C's sole discretion. The T/C merely says 'Lady, I am awarding you a monetary judgment; however, if you don't agree to limit collection, I am sentencing H for his contempt: (a) an admonishment or (b) a fine of $1.00. If you agree to limit collections, I will sentence him to 6 mos. in jail (punitive) plus he remains in jail until he pays the full accrued c/s; provided, however, his sentence is probated if he timely pays the accrued c/s and judgment per the following installment plan. If he doesn't timely pay, the probation may be revoked and he goes to jail and the limitation on the collections of the monetary judgment is dissolved.' Is this legal? Don't know but its worth a try.

CA affirms. When H & W signed the Rule 11 agreement, 55% of the stock options belong to W so H held same in a constructive trust for W's benefit. Equitably W should receive, at her option; (a) 55% of the option proceeds at the time of sale or (b) 55% of the value of the stock H purchased with the proceeds of the stock option sale.

Comment - Keep emphasizing the word 'equitable' because this opinion violates all of the case law on the T/C's ability to vary the terms of the parties' Rule 11 agreement. Of course no one discussed the fact that the Rule 11 agreement purported to divide non-existing assets (the options had been exercised at the time the Rule 11 agreement was signed). Maybe a Rule 11 agreement can be varied if equity, as opposed to the law, dictates.