### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 09 -0 00 10 -C V

______________________________ IN T H E IN T E R E S T O F K
. R
. L. , A C H ILD

On Appea l from the 71st J udicial District Court

Har rison County , Texas Trial Court No. 07-0371

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice Carte r2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Michelle L avende r appe als a modification of a child support order and ar g ues that the trial court a bused i ts discretion in re ducing the child support orde r. We aff irm the judg ment of the trial court. I. The Divorce Dec ree Sam and Michelle L avende r divorce d on J uly 3, 2007, by an agr eed decr ee of divorce which provided that Sam would pay child support, divided proper ty , and appor

tioned respo nsibili ty

for debts. As par

t of that ag ree ment, Sam ag ree d to pay su b s t an t ial child support with the ag ree ment that Michelle would live with the c hildren in the fam ily residenc e and make pay ments on the proper ty and for expenses associate d with the residence. From his salar y as a de puty

sheriff , Sam was orde red to pa

y what appea

rs to be the amount established by the child support g uidelines ($ 41 4. 98 be g inn ingOc tob e r 1 , 2 00 7, re du c e d to $3 31 .5 8 wh e n the old e st c hil d is n o lo ng e r e lig ibl e fo r s up po rt ). Ad dit ion a lly , h e wa s o rd e re d to pa y tw e nty -f ive pe rc e nt of

mon ie s r e c e ive d f

ro m a tr us t fund af ter he deducte d twenty -five pe rce nt for taxes. II. Motion to Modify S upp ort Th e parti es and

a tto rn e y s a

pp e are d b e fo re the tr ia l c ourt a y e ar l a te r o n Sam' s mo tio n to mod if y . T he e vid e nc e wa s pre se nte d in a uniq ue mann e r. Th e pa

rt ie s a g re e d th a t e a c h s ide wo uld prese nt an offe r of pr oof consisting of the attorney s' statements of fac t r ather than formal pr oof. The trial court a cce pted this procedur e and ultimately based f actua l findings ther eon. As this procedur e3

wa s a pp ro ve d at th e tr ia l c ourt , th e re is no c omp la int on thi s a pp e a l c on c e rn ing thi s c on du c t. Thus , we will likewise c onsider these offe rs as e vidence in the case

. Th e re is e vid e nc e that w ith in a ve ry sh or t pe ri od of tim e , Mic he lle mov e d out of the ho us e with the two children ( one of w hom has since turne d eig hteen) and simultaneously stopped making the pa y me nts on the ho us e and

its e xpe ns e s. A . St a nd a r d o f R e v ie w The Te x as F amily

Code allows cour

ts to modi fy

child support order s whene ver the re has been a materia l and subst antial chang e in the circumstances of the child, or of a person a ffe cted by a support orde r. T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 15 6. 40 1( a ) ( Ve rn on 20 08 ); Nordstrom v. Nordst rom , 965 S.W .2d 575, 578 (Tex. A

pp.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. denied) . There fore , evidenc e re g arding the par ents' or the c hild's financ ial circ umstances or the child' s needs at the time of the divorce and the time of the modification hearingshould be prese nted to the trial court so that the tria l court ca n deter mine that the re quisite material and substantial c hang e has o cc u rr ed. MacCallum v. MacCallum , 801 S.W .2d 579 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, writ denied). Should the requisite chang ed cir cumstance s appea r, the c ourt may

then alter the child support obligation . F

ar ish v . F ar ish , 9 2 1 S
. W
. 2 d 5 3 8 , 5 4 1 (T ex . Ap p . — Be au m o n t1 9 9 6 , n o p et
. ). A c o u rt 's child support order

will not be dis turbed on a

ppeal unless the c omplaining pa rty shows that the orde r constituted a clear a

buse of the c ourt' s discretion. W orford v. Stamper , 8 0 1 S. W. 2 d 1 0 8 , 1 0 9 ( T e x. 19 90 ); In re J

.D.D. , 2 42 S.W. 3d

91 6, 91 9 ( Te x. App .— Dal la s 2 00 8, pe t. d e nie d) . T he te st i s4

w h e th e r th e c o u r

t a c te d ar b it r ar il y o r u n r e a s o n a

b ly , w it h o u t r e f e r e n c e to an y g u id in g r

u le s and principles. Simon v. Y

ork Crane &Rigging Co. , 739 S.W .2d 793 (Tex. 1987). Michelle a

rg ues that the trial c ourt committed reve rsi b l e error by modify ing suppor

t, and mentions, though without arguing, that there w as no evidenc e of the party ' s expenses, or "a bout the best interest of the child whose support wa s at issue." She also co m plains that the rec ord did not indicate what child support Sam is now to pay or fr om which source it should come. B. The Am ount of

Sup port Taking the ar g uments in rever se, we note that the orde r spec ifies that Sam is to pay $750.00 per month in child support. Michelle se ems to argue that the or d er is ambiguous be cause that amount may

be in addition to the monthly amount of $498.48 that a s ep ar at e docume nt (a wi t h h o l d i n g d i re ct i v e) s t at es i s t o b e w i t h h e l d f r o m h i s s al ary

fr o m t h e H arri s o nC o u n t y S h er i ff 's Of fi c e . (T he re po rt e r' s re c or d ind ic a te s th a t th e a mou nt b e ingwi thh e ld h a s si nc e be e n lo we re d to $331.58 beca

use one of

the childre n is no longe r a minor.) The a rg ument appears to be that the $7 50 .0 0 is fo r c hil d s up po rt fr om a tr us t f ro m w hic h Sam is pa id, in a dd iti on to t he a mou nt w ith he ld from his pay

from the she riff' s office

. This is a misreading of the doc uments. The contr olling docume nt is the cour t's or der. That order states that Sam must pay $750.00 per month in child s u p p o rt
. T he withholding doc ument contained in our

rec ord is from the prior order , and the f act that it is for less than the monthly total means only

that Sam mus t m ake up the differ ence in ordere d support from some other source .5

Although Mic helle ar g ues that this is in additi on to o ther money that Sam is required to pa y , the
or de r d oe s n ot s up po rt

that po sit ion , bu t in fa c t dir e c ts that any ba lanc e du e a ft e r t he wi thh old ingis an oblig ation of Sam' s which he is re quired to pay

. C. Suffic ie nc y o f Evid e nc e of C hang e of C ir c um st anc e s Michelle a lso argues very briefly that althoug h the par

ties acknow ledg ed the " back a nd forth" residenc e of the y oung er c hild, Sam provided no evidenc e of the chang es in ec onomic circ umstances of any pa rt y , th a t th e re wa s n o e vid e nc e of any pa rt y ' s e xpe ns e s at th e tim e of div or c e or

a t th e tim e of trial, and no e vidence about the best intere st of the child whose suppor t was at issue. Section 156.401 of the Texas F amily Code allows a court to modify an orde r that provides for the suppor

t of a ch i l d i f "t h e circumstances of the child or a pe rson af fec ted by the orde r have mat eri all y

andsu bs tan ti all y

chan ged si nce . . . th e dat e of t he o rder 's ren di ti on ." T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 156.401(a) (1)( A). In deter mining whether a modification of support i s nece ssary , the trial
c ourt is to e xami ne and

c omp are the c ir c ums tanc e s o f t he pa re nts and any min or c hil dr e n at th e tim e of the initial orde r, with the circ umstances exis ting at the time modific ation is soug ht. In re C.C.J., 244 S.W .3d 911, 918 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.). The trial court is g iven broa d discretion in setting child support pay ments and in modify ing those pay ments. Id. ; Nordstrom , 965 S.W .2d at 578. The re cord must contain both historical a nd curr ent evidenc e of the rele vant per son' s financia l circ umstances. As c ourts have pointed out, without both sets of i nformation, the c ourt has nothing6

to compar e and cannot determine whe ther a materia l and substantial chang e has oc curr ed. London v. London , 192 S.W .3d 6, 15 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2005, pet. denied)

. Th e c ourt in t his c a se ma de mul tip le fi nd ing s: 1. Th e a

pp lic a tio n o f t

he g uid e lin e s w ou ld b e un jus t or ina pp ro pr ia te 2. Th e e vid e nc e re bu ts the pr e su mpt ion that a pp lic a tio n of

the g uid e lin e s is in the be st i nte re st o f t

he c hil d a nd jus tif ie s a va ri anc e fr om t

he g uid e lin e s. 3 The amount of child support order ed by the Court is justi fied by

the fa ctors set forth in sec tion 154.123 of the Texas Family Code. The Te x as F amily

Code allows the trial c ourt to deviate from the g uidelines for c hild support for va rious rea sons after

consideringrele vant fa ctors. T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 154.123 (Ve rnon 2008). Specific ally , the cour t may consider de bts or debt s er v i ce assumed by either pa rty and the amount of t he ti me of possession and ac cess to the c hild. T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 154.123(b)( 4), (16). He re, the trial court found that Michelle' s expenses wer e lowered by her decision to abandon the family

residenc e and leave it to the questi onable mercy of cr editors. The c ourt also noted that the child s pent m ore than six ty perc ent of he r time with Sam, that healthca re insura nce a nd pay ment of the c hild's medic al expenses had b ee n l ar gely assumed by

Sam, and that he ha d assumed over $1,300.00 per month in debts orig inally assig ned to Michelle. The re cord c ontains evidenc e to support these finding s. There is evidence that Sam kept the
c hil d n e arl y

tw o- thi rd s o f t

he tim e , tha t he purc ha se d w hat w a s n e c e ssa ry fo r h e r, and

that Mi c he lle ha d, a f t e r f a l l i n g a t l e a s t t w o m o n t h s d e l i n qu e n t i n p ay m e n t s o n t h e f

a m i l y r e s i d e n c e , mov e d o ut. There is evidence that the pay ments had bee n s et as they wer e to allow Miche lle to make the7

pay ments on those proper

ties and on a y ear -old pickup truck w hich was r epossessed. She now lives with he r boy friend with minimal or no living expenses, and the natura l r esult of her behavior was to r e qu ir e Sa m to c a tc h u

p th e pa y me nts tha t she ha d f a ile d to make , a s w e ll a s k e e pin g the pa y me nts
c ur re nt. (O f co ur se , he c ou ld have a llo we d the pr op e rt y to be fo re c los e d, but w ou ld s til l be lia ble for a ny defic iency .) The trial c ourt enter ed finding s of fact in which several of the relevant factors for deviating from the standa

rd child support orde r we re c onsidered. H oweve r, the trial c ourt d i d n o t m ak e a finding reg ardingthe per centa g e of ne t resourc es ac tual l y u s ed in establishing the c hild support order

. See T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 15 4. 13 0( b) (r e qu ir ingtr ia l c ourt to e nte r s uc h a

fi nd ingif

a mou nt of c hil d su

pp or t or de re d va

ri e s fr om s tand ard

g uid e lin e s) . We have a tte mpt e d to e xtra po la te from the e vidence that information. The evidenc e shows that Sam's trust income for the pr evious y ear was $84,000.00, or an avera g e of $7,000.00 per month. Acc ording to the Texas Family Code
c ha rt , th a t g ro ss a

mou nt r e su lts in a

ne t r e so ur c e , a ft e r p ro pe r d e du c tio ns , o f $ 5, 19 4. 81 . H is employ er ha s been or dere d to withhold $331.58 per month which , based on twe nty perc ent withholding for o n e ch i l d, would result in a net r esourc e for his job of approxim ately $1,650.00 per month. Joi ntly , his net monthly resour ces f

or child support purpose s is $6,844.81, twenty perc ent of which would be $1,368.96. The trial court order ed him to pay $750.00 per mont h , or
a pp ro xima te ly

e le ve n p e rc e nt o f h is n e t r e so ur c e s. S o the d e viatio n a pp e ars to b e a

pp ro xima te ly $6 19 .0 0 p e r m on th, a

nin e pe rc e nt dev iat io n. Th e tr ia l c ourt fo un d th a t Sam ha d in c re a se d h isAt oth e r pla c e s in the div or c e de c re e , the ho me a dd re ss is s ho wn

to b e in " Ha lls vil le , T e xas, 1 75650." 8 monthly expenses by

more than $1,300.00 since the divorce by assuming the house pay

ments and
re la te d de bts that Mi c he lle wa s p re vio us ly re qu ir e d to pa

y and that Mi c he lle ha d in

tur n s ub sta nti a lly
re du c e d h e r e xpe ns e s. Th is o c c ur re d d espite the fa c t th a t th e div or c e de c re e awa rd e d to Mic he lle

a s he r so le and se pa

rate pr op e rt

y the re a l pr op e rt

y de sc ri be d a s " 33 5 Whis pe ri ngP in es, Mar sh a ll, Texas 75672." 1 The evidence of the moneta ry position of each of

the par ties now compar ed to that when the divorce was gra

nted i s sufficie nt to allow the court to make its ruling and to support its finding s. The tr ia l c ourt did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n b y

mod if y ingsu pp or t. We affir m the judgme nt.

J ack Ca rter J ustice Date Submitted: J une 16, 2009 Date D ecide d: J une 23, 2009