This appeal arises from a suit for divorce filed by Sandra Ann Fontenot against Todd Martin Fontenot. Judgment was entered October 18, 2001. Subsequently, the trial court granted Todd's motion for judgment nunc pro tunc and entered a new judgment on December 28, 2001. Sandra appeals claiming the trial court erred in granting the judgment nunc pro tunc.
On August 15, 2001, the trial court ruled in open court, "the Petitioner will have half of the Navy retirement of the Respondent's . . . ." Todd's motion for judgment nunc pro tunc alleged the judgment entered October 18, 2001, failed to accurately reflect the trial court's ruling in that it did not contain the correct language to award Sandra her 50% share of Todd's retirement and in that it required Todd to carry Sandra as his beneficiary under the Armed Services Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). At the hearing on the motion for judgment nunc pro tunc, the trial court stated, "What I meant to award was half the pension, what it's worth today." Further, the trial court declared, "I know what I intended to do. I intended to give Sandy half the pension. . . . I did not intend to make him carry a life insurance policy.[ (1)] No one ever said anything about it. . . . [T]here is a separate insurance policy that I made him carry Sandy as a beneficiary on to - up to the tune of $36,000. I did not mean to give her any interest in any other insurance policy."
A discrepancy between the entry of a judgment in the record and the judgment as actually rendered is a clerical error. See Andrews v. Koch, 702 S.W.2d 584, 585 (Tex. 1986). The judgment of December 28, 2001, reflects the trial court's intentions as pronounced in his ruling on August 15, 2001. Based on the evidence presented in the record, we therefore conclude the judgment entered on December 28, 2001, was within the scope of a judgment nunc pro tunc.
Sandra further contends the trial court's action violates Chapter 9 of the Texas Family Code. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 9.007 (Vernon 1998). Chapter 9 does not apply to the correction of a clerical error via a judgment nunc pro tunc.
Appellant's arguments are overruled and the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on July 17, 2002
Opinion Delivered August 15, 2002
Do Not Publish
Before Walker, C.J., Burgess and Gaultney, JJ.
1.
The record reflects the trial court was referring to the SBP.