"The interpretation of a judgment is a question of law." Pruitt v. Pruitt, 293 S.W.3d 537, 544 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Ziobrowski v. Ziobrowski, No. M2006-02359-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 4530460, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2007)). We review questions of law de novo with no presumption of correctness.

Pursuant to the trial court's express retention of jurisdiction, the court exercised the authority to take appropriate action in maintaining the status of the DRO and to effectuate its division of the parties' marital property. Although it would be impermissible for the trial court to establish or maintain a QDRO that was inconsistent with the terms of the parties' final decree, see Ziobrowski v. Ziobrowski, No. M2006-02359-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 4530460 at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2007), such was not the circumstance here. The July 1999 QDRO was entirely consistent with the January 1999 order of the court, the latter providing that Wife was entitled to fifty percent of Husband's retirement benefits from the Kennametal Inc. Retirement Income Plan.

The interpretation of a judgment is a question of law. Ziobrowski v. Ziobrowski, No. M2006-02359-COA-R3-CV, 2007 WL 4530460, at *3 (Tenn.Ct.App. Dec. 20, 2007) (no Tenn. R.App. P. 11 application filed). We are to construe judgments as we do other written instruments, and the determinative factor is the intention of the court as collected from all parts of the judgment.