decision reinstated. This does not mean, however, that Sharon is necessarily without a remedy. A divorce court has continuing jurisdiction to clarify ambiguities and discrepancies in its judgments and orders concerning the distribution of retirement benefits. See Jed-Harbage, 2003 ME 74, ¶ 10, 825 A.2d at 352; Greenwood, 2000 ME 37, ¶ 9, 746 A.2d at 360. A substantial discrepancy concerning the distribution of retirement benefits between a judgment and the QDRO implementing the judgment constitutes an ambiguity that may justify the exercise of the court’s post-judgment clarification authority. That authority includes, where appropriate, the modification of the QDRO to conform to the intent of the court’s judgments. See Eller v. Bolton, 168 Md.App. 96, 895 A.2d 382, 392, 395 (2006) (<HOLDING>); Ozment v. Ozment, 11 P.3d 635, 639-40
holding that where the issue of sanctions was not before the court of appeals when the appeal was filed the district court retained jurisdiction recognizing the authority of the trial court to amend a qdro where the court had expressly retained jurisdiction over the qdro and the enforcement of the qdro would frustrate the parties intent as expressed in the consent judgment holding that the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal on a restraining order and the district court retained jurisdiction to proceed with the trial holding that the information must establish that the court has jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties holding the court cannot find intent where the consent judgment fails to mention the cause of action