Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
CONCURRING OPINION
No. 04-20-00611-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF L.J.L. and J.W.L., Minor Children
From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2016-CI-08129
Honorable Angelica Jimenez, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Concurring Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice (concurring in the judgment only)
Delivered and Filed: June 29, 2022
I agree with the majority that “the trial court entered orders that failed to match the rendered
judgment.” However, I believe the opinion neglects to make the initial determination that the
alleged discrepancies are clerical errors rather than judicial errors, to address the issues of waiver
and materiality, and to clarify each discrepancy and modification in the opinion for the benefit of
the parties. Therefore, I concur in the judgment.
Appellant asserts that the trial court’s written orders from November 20, 2020 do not
conform to the agreement made by the parties on October 28, 2020, and that the orders must be
void as a result. Appellee responds that the differences between the orally rendered agreement
and the signed orders were either waived, are immaterial, or are clerical errors.
Concurring Opinion 04-20-00611-CV
Ultimately, I agree with the majority that a review of the record reflects that the signed
order did not accurately reflect the trial court’s rendition of judgment consistent with the parties’
agreement entered verbally in open court, and that we may correct only a clerical variance between
a judgment announced in open court and the order or judgment eventually signed by the trial court.
As a reviewing court, we must first make an initial determination that an alleged discrepancy is
clerical, and not judicial error. See In re Daredia, 317 S.W.3d 247, 249 (Tex. 2010) (per curium);
see also Texas Dept. of Transp. v. A.P.I. Pipe and Supply, LLC, 397 S.W.3d 162, 167 (Tex. 2013); In
the Interest of A.M., No. 04-16-00335-CV, 2017 WL 1337648, at *5 (Tex. App.—San Antonio
2017, no pet.) (mem. op.); In the Interest of R.H.B., No. 04-21-00038-CV, 2022 WL 946640, at
*7 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Mar. 30, 2022, no pet. h.) (affirming as modified by comparing
exchanges in the record with the modification order and determining the discrepancies raised by
appellant were clerical errors). The opinion neglects to perform the initial exercise to determine,
after clarification of the alleged discrepancy as reflected in the record, that such error amounted to
clerical error.
Assuming without deciding that an alleged discrepancy was clerical error, I believe the
parties would benefit from an opinion that could add further guidance to the parties and trial court
in support of the modified judgment. At this time, I concur in the judgment only.
Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
-2-