Stephanie Dianna Elliott v. Cori Russell ( 2024 )

Affirmed and Opinion Filed March 7, 2024
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-22-01235-CV
STEPHANIE DIANNA ELLIOTT, Appellant
V.
CORI RUSSELL, Appellee
On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DF-22-09101
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Molberg, Pedersen, III, and Goldstein
Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III
Appellant Stephanie Dianna Elliott appeals the November 1, 2022 Final
Divorce Decree (the Decree) ending her marriage to appellee Cori Russell. In two
issues, Elliott contends the trial court erred (1) by failing to include in the Decree
sufficient detail concerning how property awarded to Elliott would be turned over to
her from Russell, and (2) by not allowing Elliott to offer evidence concerning
property she owned prior to marriage. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm
the trial court’s judgment.
Elliott and Russell were married November 10, 2018. When Elliott was
arrested in April 2021, the parties agreed to end their marriage.1 During the course
of the divorce litigation, they agreed on a division of their property, and Russell
placed the property to be awarded to Elliott in a unit at a Storage King facility.2 The
Decree was signed November 1, 2022. Elliott contends that Russell has refused to
turn over the keys to the storage unit to Elliott’s family. Moreover, because the unit
is in Russell’s name, Storage King will not assist Elliott in obtaining her property.
Elliott asks us to order Russell to comply with the Decree or to remand and instruct
the trial court to give detailed orders to Russell and to Storage King for the transfer
of Elliott’s property.
Both parties appeared pro se below, and Elliott filed this appeal pro se. Russell
did not file a brief in this Court. Accordingly, we accept as true the facts stated by
Elliott in her brief. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(g).
In her first issue, Elliott complains that the trial court did not include in the
Decree sufficient detail concerning how her property would be turned over. The
Decree includes this typed language, which is initialed by the trial judge:
[Elliott] shall be responsible financially for the storage unit
[specifically identified by Storage King address and unit number]
beginning November 1, 2022. [Elliott’s] family shall pick up the keys
1
Elliott was sentenced to 108 months’ confinement on April 22, 2022. Accordingly, she has
participated in this litigation while serving that sentence.
2
The property awarded to Elliott included a GE dryer, a set of cream-colored bedroom furniture, an
LG television, and a Bluetooth speaker.
–2–
for the unit from [Russell] as well as notify Storage King regarding
what will happen to [Elliott’s] property on or before November 5, 2022.
We disagree with Elliott’s argument that these instructions were not
sufficiently detailed to provide for the exchange of her property to her family from
Russell. The Decree gave dates (on or before November 5) for Elliott’s
representative to pick up the keys from Russell, whose address, phone number, and
email are all contained in the Decree. The Decree also gave the dates for Elliott to
begin paying for the storage unit (November 1) and for her family to notify Storage
King regarding whether the property would be moved or would remain in storage
(on or before November 5). Stated succinctly, the Decree was specific enough for
reasonable people to understand their obligations. See generally Ex parte Chambers,
898 S.W.2d 257, 260 (Tex. 1995) (decree should set forth terms of compliance in
clear, specific and unambiguous terms so person charged with obeying decree will
readily know exactly what duties and obligations are imposed upon her).
Elliott asks us to reverse the Decree. She did not, however, file a post-trial
motion challenging any part of the Decree. She does not complain that the divorce
was granted or that the property was divided contrary to the parties’ agreement.3
Indeed, it appears that Elliott’s complaint is not truly with the trial court or the
Decree but with Russell’s refusal to comply with the Decree. But this Court cannot
3
Although Elliott’s second issue mentions property she purchased before marriage, the record contains
the parties’ property division agreement, which the Decree follows. Elliott did not identify any separate
property in the trial court. Nor does she address—beyond the bare statement of this second issue—any other
property in her brief. Accordingly, we do not address the issue of separate property or Elliott’s second issue.
–3–
enforce the Decree. That power lies in the trial court that rendered the Decree. See
TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 9.02 (“The court that rendered the decree of divorce or
annulment retains the power to enforce the property division”). Through a suit to
enforce a divorce decree—pursuant to Chapter 9, Subchapter A of the Family
Code—the trial court may render further orders that assist in the implementation of
or clarify the court’s prior order, id. § 9.006(a), or that specify more precisely the
manner of effecting the property division previously made, id. § 9.006(b). See
Chakrabarty v. Ganguly, 573 S.W.3d 413, 417 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2019, no pet.).
We discern no error in the Decree. We overrule Elliott’s first issue and affirm
the trial court’s judgment.
/Bill Pedersen, III//
221235f.p05 BILL PEDERSEN, III
JUSTICE
–4–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
STEPHANIE DIANNA ELLIOTT, On Appeal from the 254th Judicial
Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DF-22-09101.
No. 05-22-01235-CV V. Opinion delivered by Justice
Pedersen, III. Justices Molberg and
CORI RUSSELL, Appellee Goldstein participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial
court is AFFIRMED.
It is ORDERED that appellee CORI RUSSELL recover her costs of this
appeal from appellant STEPHANIE DIANNA ELLIOTT.
Judgment entered this 7th day of March, 2024.
–5–