Dallas Court of Appeals Upholds Nunc Pro Tunc Divorce Decree Correcting Child Support and Medical Support

In the Interest of T.C.C. and B.D.C., Children, 05-24-01177-CV, March 25, 2026.

On appeal from 59th Judicial District Court, Grayson County, Texas

Synopsis

The Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed a nunc pro tunc divorce decree entered after plenary power expired where the changes (higher guideline child support and added health-insurance premium reimbursement) merely conformed the written decree to the trial court’s oral rendition at the bench trial. The court dismissed the father’s remaining appellate issues—protective order, conservatorship, and homestead sale—for want of jurisdiction because an appeal from a nunc pro tunc judgment reaches only the nunc pro tunc modifications, not matters that could have been appealed from the original decree.

Relevance to Family Law

This opinion is a practical reminder that (1) child-support and medical-support provisions are not “locked” by an erroneous drafted decree if the reporter’s record shows a different oral rendition, and (2) nunc pro tunc practice is as much about appellate jurisdiction as it is about trial-court power. For Texas divorce litigators, it underscores that the post-judgment strategy must distinguish clerical mis-entry (fixable any time by nunc pro tunc) from judicial change (requiring plenary power or other statutory vehicles), and it reinforces that missing the appeal deadline from the original decree cannot be cured by appealing later nunc pro tunc proceedings.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Following an April 26, 2024 bench trial, the trial court orally rendered that Father would pay guideline child support calculated on minimum-wage earnings and would reimburse Mother for the children’s health-insurance premium amount attributable to the children’s coverage. The signed May 6, 2024 final decree did not match that oral rendition: it recited lower child-support amounts and, while it addressed health insurance and identified a monthly premium cost, it omitted an order requiring Father to reimburse Mother for the children’s portion of that premium.

About four months later, Mother moved for judgment nunc pro tunc requesting (1) correction of the child-support figures to reflect the guideline calculation on minimum-wage net resources, and (2) addition of the health-insurance premium reimbursement obligation under Family Code § 154.182(b-1). The trial court granted the motion and signed a nunc pro tunc decree making those changes. Father—appearing pro se—then filed post-order filings (including a “motion to dismiss” and a motion to set aside) and appealed, challenging not only the support changes but also the protective order ruling, conservatorship, and homestead sale provisions.

Issues Decided

• Whether the trial court, after plenary power expired, properly entered a nunc pro tunc divorce decree increasing the child-support amounts and adding health-insurance premium reimbursement as clerical corrections consistent with the court’s oral rendition.
• Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction, in an appeal from a nunc pro tunc order, to consider Father’s complaints about other aspects of the divorce decree (protective order, conservatorship, and homestead sale).

Rules Applied

• Plenary power / post-judgment modification limits: TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b (trial court generally has 30 days after signing, potentially extended by certain post-judgment motions).
• Nunc pro tunc authority for clerical errors: A trial court may correct clerical errors at any time via judgment nunc pro tunc; clerical error is a discrepancy between the judgment rendered and the judgment entered.
• Rendition in open court: A judgment is rendered when the trial court announces its decision in open court.
• Presumption when same judge signs both orders: If the same judge signs the original judgment and the nunc pro tunc order, appellate courts presume the judge’s recollection supports the finding of clerical error.
• Appellate timetable and jurisdiction in nunc pro tunc appeals: TEX. R. APP. P. 4.3(b) (an appeal from a nunc pro tunc judgment extends deadlines only as to the corrections made; appellate complaints are limited to the nunc pro tunc modifications).
• Medical support reimbursement: TEX. FAM. CODE § 154.182(b-1) (authority to order reimbursement of the cost of health-insurance coverage for the child).
• Briefing/waiver and harm: Bare assertions without authority waive error; reversible error generally requires a showing of harm. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.1(a).

Application

The court treated the dispute as a classic “rendition versus entry” problem. The bench-trial oral pronouncement established what the court actually rendered: guideline child support calculated on minimum wage and an order that Father reimburse Mother for the children’s health-insurance premium. The signed decree did something different—lower numbers and no reimbursement obligation—creating a discrepancy in the written memorialization.

Because plenary power had expired by the time Mother sought correction, the only available mechanism was a clerical correction nunc pro tunc. The court concluded the corrected child-support figures were not a new judicial decision, but the proper guideline amounts consistent with the already-rendered ruling, tied to minimum-wage net resources (identified as $1,160 net per month in the opinion). Likewise, adding the premium reimbursement term was characterized as implementing, not changing, what the judge announced at trial.

On Father’s procedural attacks—claims that the order was “backdated” or that counsel misidentified parties/counsel roles—the court found no record support for backdating and treated the misidentifications as non-substantive irregularities that were not briefed with authority and did not show harm. The core point: the substance of the nunc pro tunc changes tracked the oral rendition; thus, they were clerical corrections.

Finally, the court enforced the jurisdictional boundary that trips up many litigants: appealing the nunc pro tunc judgment does not reopen the entire divorce decree. Under Rule 4.3(b), only the nunc pro tunc modifications are within the permissible scope. Everything else had to be raised in a timely appeal from the original May 6, 2024 decree.

Holding

The court affirmed the nunc pro tunc decree as to child support and medical support. It held the trial court acted within its nunc pro tunc authority because the corrected support amounts and the added health-insurance reimbursement merely conformed the written decree to the judgment orally rendered at the end of the bench trial—i.e., they corrected clerical discrepancies rather than effectuating a post-plenary judicial re-determination.

The court dismissed for want of jurisdiction Father’s complaints regarding the protective order, joint conservatorship, and forced sale of the homestead. Those issues were not part of the nunc pro tunc modifications and could have been raised in an appeal from the original divorce decree; therefore, they were outside the appellate court’s jurisdiction in an appeal taken from the nunc pro tunc judgment.

Practical Application

For family-law litigators, the case is best understood as two distinct practice lessons—one about preserving the rendition record and one about controlling the appellate lane.

• Support orders are particularly vulnerable to “clerical drift.” Guideline calculations, step-down provisions when an older child ages out, and medical-support reimbursement terms are easy to mistranscribe into decrees. This opinion reinforces that if the reporter’s record shows a different oral rendition, a nunc pro tunc is a viable tool even months later—so long as you are conforming the written decree to what was actually rendered, not renegotiating support.
• Rendition clarity matters. If you anticipate enforcement or later correction fights, build a clean rendition record: get the judge to state the guideline basis, net resources assumptions, and medical support obligations (including who pays premium and who reimburses whom, and in what monthly amount).
• Don’t confuse “wrong” with “clerical.” If the court orally rendered the “wrong” amount (e.g., deviated guidelines without findings, or misapplied net resources), that’s typically a judicial error requiring a timely appeal or other authorized relief—not a nunc pro tunc correction. Here, the appellate court viewed the higher amounts as the correct guideline implementation of what the court had already rendered.
• Appealing a nunc pro tunc does not revive everything else. If you miss the notice-of-appeal deadline from the original decree, a later nunc pro tunc proceeding is not a second bite at conservatorship, property division, or protective-order complaints unless those were actually changed by the nunc pro tunc order.

Checklists

Nunc Pro Tunc Triage: Clerical vs. Judicial

• Confirm plenary power has expired (calendar from signing date; verify any extending motions under TRCP 329b).
• Identify the specific discrepancy between:
• Oral rendition (reporter’s record), and
• Written decree (clerk’s record).
• Ask: does the requested change merely “memorialize what was already rendered,” or does it require re-weighing evidence/new discretion?
• If it’s judicial (not clerical), evaluate alternatives (motion for new trial/modify within plenary; appeal; bill of review where applicable; statutory modification where applicable).

Building the Record for Future Clerical Corrections

• Ensure the court orally states:
• Net resources basis (including minimum wage or imputed income premise).
• Guideline percentages and step-down amounts when a child ages out.
• Medical support: who carries insurance, monthly cost, and reimbursement amount (or percentage) under § 154.182.
• Request the court to confirm the oral ruling is “the judgment of the court.”
• Secure the reporter’s record promptly if decree language later conflicts with rendition.

Drafting / Review Protocol for Decrees with Support and Medical Support

• Recalculate guideline support independently and confirm the decree’s:
• Net resources figure,
• Percentage, and
• Step-down schedule.
• Verify medical support provisions include (if ordered):
• The monthly premium attributable to the children, and
• An explicit reimbursement obligation and payment mechanism.
• Cross-check every number against the court’s pronouncement before submission/signing.
• If opposing counsel drafts, create a redline checklist tied to the oral rendition.

Appellate-Lane Control After a Nunc Pro Tunc Order

• Identify precisely what the nunc pro tunc order changed; limit issues accordingly.
• If you intend to challenge non-nunc-pro-tunc issues, analyze whether a timely appeal from the original decree was perfected; if not, advise candidly about jurisdictional limits.
• In briefing, anchor the argument to:
• TRAP 4.3(b) scope, and
• Whether the change is clerical (rendition-entry discrepancy) versus judicial.
• Preserve harm analysis; avoid “void” arguments untethered to record evidence and authority.

Citation

In the Interest of T.C.C. and B.D.C., Children, No. 05-24-01177-CV (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 25, 2026) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~87919f06-b7f7-4f2a-b6d8-c65db544919a~~