In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-19-00017-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 325th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 325-613438-17

Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Wallach, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach

S.L., Appellant

V.

S.L., Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant S.L. (Mother) appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting her

requested divorce from Appellee S.L. (Father), naming her the joint managing 

conservator with the exclusive right to designate their son C.L.’s primary residence,

ordering her to pay Father child support, and dividing the community estate. In three 

issues, Mother complains that the trial court reversibly erred by not filing findings of 

fact and conclusions of law and statutory findings regarding the child-support order, 

that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering her to pay Father child support, 

and that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding Father a disproportionate share 

of the community estate. Because we hold that the trial court did not reversibly err, we 

affirm the trial court’s judgment.

I. Background

Mother and Father were married in 2002, and C.L. was born in 2007. For C.L.’s 

entire life, Mother, a registered nurse in the pediatric intensive-care unit at Cook 

Children’s Medical Center, had regularly worked three twelve-hour shifts from Friday 

night through Monday morning each week. Father took care of C.L. on the weekends

while Mother worked and slept, and Mother took C.L. to school and managed his daily 

life while Father worked Monday through Friday. Both parents helped C.L. with his 

homework at night.

Mother had always had a significantly higher salary than Father, and she paid all 

the bills from the couple’s earnings and controlled all the finances. She began having an 
3

affair in late 2015, and Father discovered the affair a few months later. Mother filed her 

original petition for divorce in February 2017, alleging the ground of insupportability

and asking the trial court to divide the community estate. In her amended petition, 

Mother asked that the trial court divide the community estate in a “just and right” 

manner according to Texas law; she also requested that she and Father be appointed 

joint managing conservators of C.L. Mother did not seek child support in her amended 

petition.

In Father’s counterpetition, he likewise alleged insupportability, requested a “just 

and right” division of the community estate, and requested joint managing 

conservatorship. However, he additionally sought to be named the parent with the 

exclusive right to designate C.L.’s primary residence and asked for child support. In 

Father’s amended counterpetition, he added the divorce ground of adultery; in his 

second amended counterpetition, he added a spousal-maintenance request, sought a 

50/50 possession schedule as an alternative to his request to be named the parent with 

the exclusive right to designate C.L.’s primary residence, and requested a 

disproportionate share of the community estate on the following grounds:

a. fault in the breakup of the marriage;

b. benefits [Father] may have derived from the continuation of the

marriage;

c. disparity of [Father’s and Mother’s] earning power . . . and their 

abilit[ies] to support themselves;

d. the spouse to whom conservatorship of the child is granted;
4

e. [C.L.’s] needs . . . ;

f. [Mother’s and Father’s relative] earning power, business 

opportunities, capacities, and abilities . . . ; and

g. need for future support.

The bench trial occurred in August 2018. Only Mother, Father, and their 

respective lawyers testified. The parties stipulated to the admissibility of their exhibits—

including proposed parenting plans, proposed property divisions, inventories and 

appraisements, child-support computations, income-and-expense statements, and 

information on assets, debts, and taxes.

The trial judge issued a letter ruling two days after the trial. In the letter ruling, 

the trial court

• named Mother the joint managing conservator with the exclusive rights

to designate C.L.’s primary residence, to designate his healthcare 

providers, and (after consultation with Father) to make decisions about 

C.L.’s education;

• named Mother the joint managing conservator with the independent 

rights, after consultation with Father, to consent to medical, dental, and 

surgical treatment involving invasive procedures; to consent to 

psychological and psychiatric treatment; and to consent to marriage and 

to enlistment in the armed forces;

• named Father the joint managing conservator with the right to receive 

child support;

• awarded Father possession of C.L. pursuant to a modified possession 

schedule (1) on the first, second, fourth, and fifth weekends; (2) on the 

third Friday of each month beginning at 3:00 p.m. and ending at 7:00 a.m. 

on that following Saturday morning; (3) for two weeks exclusive of 

Mother during the summer; and (4) on holidays as provided in a standard 

possession order;
5

• awarded Mother possession of C.L. at all other times not awarded to

Father;

• awarded each parent a right of first refusal, ordering that if either parent 

would be absent from the child for longer than eight consecutive hours 

while in possession of the child, then the parent would give the other 

parent the right of first refusal to care for the child;

• ordered Mother to pay Father monthly child support of $1,000 and to 

provide health insurance coverage for C.L.;

• ordered the marital home sold, and the net sales proceeds to be first 

applied to certain credit-card debt and then split 40%/60% between 

Mother and Father respectively, with Mother paying 60% of the IRS

income-tax debt out of her share and Father paying 40% of the IRS 

income-tax debt plus his remaining medical bills out of his share;

• awarded Father 100% of his retirement plan;

1 and

• awarded Father $224,380 from Mother’s retirement plan.

2

Two days after the letter ruling, Mother requested findings of fact and conclusions of 

law as well as statutory findings on the child-support order.

Mother’s counsel prepared the final divorce decree as directed by the trial court 

in the letter ruling. The trial judge signed the decree on October 24, 2018. Unlike the 

letter ruling, the decree gave both parents the right to receive child support.

Mother filed her notice of past due findings of fact and conclusions of law on 

November 29, 2018. The trial court did not issue any. Mother timely filed her notice of 

appeal.

1

Father’s retirement account had a balance of $21,738.

2

Mother’s retirement account had a balance of $402,000.
6

II. Discussion

A. Mother’s Obligation to Pay Father Child Support

In her second issue, Mother complains that the trial court abused its discretion

by ordering her to pay Father child support even though she was named the joint 

managing conservator with the exclusive right to determine C.L.’s primary residence. 

We will not reverse a trial court’s child-support order absent an abuse of discretion.

Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex. 1990).

A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts arbitrarily or unreasonably or does not 

analyze or apply the law properly. Iliff v. Iliff, 339 S.W.3d 74, 78 (Tex. 2011). Whether 

the evidence supporting the trial court’s decision is legally and factually sufficient is 

relevant in deciding whether the trial court abused its discretion. In re P.S., 505 S.W.3d 

106, 109 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, no pet.). Accordingly, in determining whether 

an abuse of discretion has occurred because the evidence is legally or factually

insufficient to support the trial court’s decision, we ask whether (1) the trial court had

enough information upon which to exercise its discretion and (2) the trial court erred

in applying its discretion. Neyland v. Raymond, 324 S.W.3d 646, 649–650 (Tex. App.—

Fort Worth 2010, no pet.). The applicable sufficiency review comes into play in 

answering the first question. Id. at 649–50. Concerning the second question, we 

determine, based on the elicited evidence, whether the trial court made a reasonable 

decision. Id. at 650. A trial court does not abuse its discretion by basing its decision on 

conflicting evidence if some evidence supports its decision. Unifund CCR Partners v.
7

Villa, 299 S.W.3d 92, 97 (Tex. 2009); In re Barber, 982 S.W.2d 364, 366 (Tex. 1998) (orig. 

proceeding); see In re E.P.C., 381 S.W.3d 670, 688 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no 

pet.) (en banc) (“The evidence . . . is obviously conflicting, but we do not resolve the 

conflicts, for that is within the factfinder’s province.”).

Parents have a legal duty to support their minor children. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 

§ 151.003; Iliff, 339 S.W.3d at 81; In re W.B.B., No. 05-17-00384-CV, 2018 WL 3434588, 

at *6 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 17, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.). “The appointment of joint 

managing conservators does not impair or limit the authority of the court to order a 

joint managing conservator to pay child support to another joint managing 

conservator.” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 153.138; see In re A.R.W., No. 05-18-00201-CV, 

2019 WL 6317870, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 26, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op. on 

reh’g). A trial court’s chief consideration when making a child-support decision must 

always be the child’s best interest. Iliff, 339 S.W.3d at 81; A.R.W., 2019 WL 6317870, at 

*3. A second principle guiding the trial court’s child-support decision is that a function 

of child support is to “help a custodial parent maintain an adequate standard of living 

for the child.” Williams v. Patton, 821 S.W.2d 141, 145 (Tex. 1991) (emphasis added); see 

A.R.W., 2019 WL 6317870, at *3 (quoting and emphasizing same).

As our sister court in Dallas explained last year in A.R.W., a case (like this one)

in which the joint managing conservator with the exclusive right to determine the child’s 

primary residence was ordered to pay child support to the other parent who had

modified possession of the child,
8

[T]he Family Code does not require that the parent with primary custody 

automatically be considered the child-support obligee. . . . [A]mong the 

infinite number of combinations and permutations of circumstances in 

which divorced parents might find themselves, one of them is where the 

parent without primary custody of the child needs financial assistance 

from the other parent to provide what a trial court—having absorbed all 

of the evidence in the first instance—considers to be adequate living 

accommodations while the child is living in that parent’s abode. It is not 

hard to imagine situations where this result can occur. By granting trial 

courts discretion to establish support obligations in the child’s best 

interest, Tex. Fam. Code [Ann.] § 154.123(b)(17), the Family Code gives 

trial courts the ability to fashion appropriate resource allocations to 

determine “an equitable amount of child support” depending on the 

particular facts and circumstances in those individual situations, id.

§ 154.121. Indeed, the Family Code provides that “[t]he court may order 

either or both parents to support a child in the manner specified by the 

order.” Id. § 154.001(a).

Thus, the question is not whether the trial court had the power to 

require a parent with whom the child lives most of the time to provide 

support to the other parent so the child could have a proper living 

environment while at the other parent’s house; rather, the issue is whether 

there is record evidence from which the trial court could reasonably have 

done so in this case.

2019 WL 6317870, at *1–2 (selected internal quotation marks omitted).

Like the evidence in A.R.W., the evidence in this case is sufficient to support the 

trial court’s decision to award the parent without the exclusive right to determine the 

child’s primary residence—here, Father—child support. The trial court heard evidence 

that

• Mother had always earned significantly more than Father during the 

marriage;

• Father’s annual gross income was less than 25% of Mother’s average gross 

income of the three years before the trial;
9

• Father’s monthly expenses were higher than his monthly income;

• Mother had no knowledge of Father’s receiving job offers for higher pay;

• Father would need five years to go back to college for a more lucrative 

career;

• Mother knew that Father was financially strapped;

• While the divorce was pending, Mother paid Father’s bills and gave him 

cash to spend;

• While the divorce was pending, Father could not afford to take C.L. to 

activities that cost money. Father asked Mother for money, but she 

refused;

• Mother wanted Father to have more and different possession of C.L. than 

a standard possession schedule would have given him;

• Mother wanted C.L. to have a “good lifestyle” when he was with Father 

and a comparable lifestyle in both homes, if possible;

• Mother worked Friday, Saturday, and Sunday nights of each week from 

7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. the next morning and worked sometimes during the 

week; and

• Father worked Monday through Friday, from 9:00 a.m. to anywhere 

between 2:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., except he was off the Friday before and 

the Monday after the third weekend and was on-call during the third 

weekend.

The evidence that Mother’s average monthly income far outweighed Father’s, that his 

monthly expenses exceeded his monthly income, that Father wanted to provide C.L.’s 

primary residence, that Mother wanted Father to have modified possession of C.L., that 

Father could not afford to pay for C.L.’s activities when C.L. was with him on 

weekends, and that Mother wanted C.L. to have a comparable living situation in both 

homes if possible supports the trial court’s ordering Mother to pay Father child support
10

and the trial court’s implicit findings that Mother’s paying Father child support would 

serve C.L.’s best interest and ensure C.L. an adequate standard of living during Father’s 

periods of possession. See id. at *7–9.

Mother relies on a case in which the trial court abused its discretion by ordering 

a sole managing conservator to pay child support to a possessory conservator. Lueg v. 

Lueg, 976 S.W.2d 308, 313 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1998, pet. denied). 

Despite some similarities in the division of parental rights and duties, that case is 

inapposite because Mother and Father are joint managing conservators. See Lowe v. 

Roberts, No. 14-10-01191-CV, 2012 WL 50617, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]

Jan 10, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.). Although as between the sole managing conservator 

and the possessory conservator, the Family Code gives only the sole managing 

conservator the express right to receive child support, compare Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 

§ 153.132(4), with id. § 153.192, the Family Code gives the trial court authority to order 

one joint managing conservator—even one who has the exclusive right to determine a 

child’s primary residence and who has possession of the child the majority of the time—

to pay child support to the other joint managing conservator. See id. §§ 153.134(b)(2),

153.138; A.R.W., 2019 WL 6317870, at *9. The trial court had sufficient evidence upon 

which to base its order that Mother pay Father child support. That evidence, the 

modified possession schedule, and the joint-managing-conservatorship designation 

show that the decision was reasonable. We therefore hold that the trial court did not 
11

abuse its discretion by ordering Mother to pay Father child support, and we overrule 

her second issue.

B. Absence of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

In her first issue, Mother complains that the trial court reversibly erred by failing 

to file findings of fact and conclusions of law and statutory findings on the childsupport order. Because Mother filed her notice of past due findings of fact and 

conclusions of law too late, she has waived any complaint regarding the findings of fact 

and conclusions of law under Rule of Civil Procedure 296. As for the Family Code 

Section 154.130 findings supporting the child-support order, Mother timely requested

them, and the trial court did not make them or incorporate them into the divorce 

decree. The trial court therefore erred by not making them. However, the error was 

harmless.

1. Waived Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Under Rule of Civil Procedure 296

After a bench trial, a party may request that the trial court issue separate written 

findings of fact and conclusions of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 296. The party must file its 

request within twenty days after the signing of the judgment. Id. If the party files its

request for findings of fact and conclusions of law before the trial court signs the 

judgment, the request “shall be deemed to have been filed on the date of but subsequent 

to the time” the judgment was signed. Tex. R. Civ. P. 306c. If the trial court does not 

file its findings of fact and conclusions of law within twenty days after the party’s timely 
12

request, then the party must file a “Notice of Past Due Findings of Fact and 

Conclusions of Law” within thirty days of its original request. Tex. R. Civ. P. 297. 

Otherwise, the party waives its appellate complaint of the trial court’s failure to file 

findings of fact and conclusions of law. Jimenez v. McGeary, 542 S.W.3d 810, 812 (Tex. 

App.—Fort Worth 2018, pet. denied); see also Las Vegas Pecan & Cattle Co., Inc. v. Zavala 

Cty., 682 S.W.2d 254, 255–56 (Tex. 1984) (applying former procedural rules).

The trial court rendered judgment by letter on August 8, 2018. Mother timely 

filed her request for findings of fact and conclusions of law under Rule 296 on August 

10, 2018. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 296, 306c. The trial court signed the final decree on October 

24, 2018; we therefore deem Mother’s request for findings of fact and conclusions of 

law to have been filed on that same date. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 306c. Thus, the trial court’s 

findings of fact and conclusions of law were due twenty days later—November 13, 

2018. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 297. After the trial court did not issue them, Mother’s notice 

of past due findings of fact and conclusions of law was due November 23, 2018, thirty 

days after the date of her deemed request. See id.; Tex. R. Civ. P. 306c; Cobb v. Cobb, 

No. 03-14-00325-CV, 2016 WL 3136886, at *3 (Tex. App.—Austin June 3, 2016, pet. 

denied) (mem. op.). However, Mother did not file her notice of past due findings and 

conclusions until November 29, 2018, which was untimely. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 297. 

Mother has therefore waived error as to the absence of findings of fact and conclusions 

of law under Rule 296. See In re T.M., No. 02-19-00114-CV, 2019 WL 4010226, at 

*6 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 26, 2019, pet. denied) (mem. op.); In re E.M.T., 
13

No. 04-18-00805-CV, 2019 WL 1370323, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Mar. 27, 

2019, no pet.) (mem. op.); Watts v. Oliver, 396 S.W.3d 124, 131 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.); see also Las Vegas Pecan, 682 S.W.2d at 256.

2. Erroneously Omitted Findings Under Family Code Section 154.130

a. The Error

Family Code Section 154.130 provides the following regarding child-support 

findings:

(a) Without regard to Rules 296 through 299, Texas Rules of Civil 

Procedure, in rendering an order of child support, the court shall 

make the findings required by Subsection (b) if:

(1) a party files a written request with the court before the final 

order is signed, but not later than 20 days after the date of 

rendition of the order;

(2) a party makes an oral request in open court during the 

hearing; or

(3) the amount of child support ordered by the court varies 

from the amount computed by applying the percentage 

guidelines under Section 154.125 or 154.129, as applicable.

. . . .

(b) If findings are required by this section, the court shall state whether 

the application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate 

and shall state the following in the child[-]support order:

“(1) the net resources of the obligor per month are 

$__________;

“(2) the net resources of the obligee per month are 

$__________;

“(3) the percentage applied to the obligor’s net resources for 

child support is __________%; and
14

“(4) if applicable, the specific reasons that the amount of child 

support per month ordered by the court varies from the 

amount computed by applying the percentage guidelines 

under Section 154.125 or 154.129, as applicable.”

(c) Findings under Subsection (b)(2) are required only if evidence of 

the monthly net resources of the obligee has been offered.

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 154.130.

On August 10, 2018, two days after the trial court’s rendition by letter, Mother 

timely filed a written request for findings under Section 154.130. See Tex. Fam. Code 

Ann. § 154.130(a)(1), (3). Rules of Civil Procedure 296 through 299 did not apply to 

this request for findings. Id. § 154.130(a). Mother’s late notice of past due findings thus 

did not waive her complaint under Section 154.130. See id.; Champenoy v. Champenoy, 

No. 01-12-00668-CV, 2013 WL 3327328, at *5 n.4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

June 27, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.). The trial court therefore erred by not making the 

Section 154.130(b) findings. See In re Q.D.S., No. 04-17-00105-CV, 2018 WL 1831686, 

at *9 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Apr. 18, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.).

b. No Harm

In the case before us, which harm standard to apply is not clear. Mother contends 

that harm is presumed, relying on Tenery v. Tenery, 932 S.W.2d 29, 30 (Tex. 1996). In 

Tenery, the Supreme Court of Texas held that under Rule 296, when the trial court fails 

to make findings after a timely, proper request, “harm . . . is presumed unless the 

contrary appears on the face of the record.” Id. The Supreme Court further held that 

“[e]rror is harmful if it prevents an appellant from properly presenting a case to the 
15

appellate court.” Id. (relying on former Rule of Appellate Procedure 81(b)). In Tenery, 

the Supreme Court held that the error was harmful because it “prevented [the appellant] 

from effectively contesting the trial court’s deviations from the guidelines.” Id.

However, in B.F. v. A.F., this court distinguished Tenery, explaining that the 

Supreme Court applied the presumed-harm analysis of Rule 296 in Tenery because the 

appellant in that case timely requested findings under that rule. B.F. v. A.F., No. 02-16-

00133-CV, 2017 WL 2375767, at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 1, 2017, no pet.)

(mem. op.). In B.F., the appellant did not request findings under Rule 296 or under 

Section 154.130; this court therefore held that Rule 296’s presumed-harm analysis was 

inapplicable and applied Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.1(a) to determine any error 

harmless. Id.

Here, Mother waived error regarding her requested findings under Section 

296 by filing her notice of past due findings too late. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 297; T.M., 

2019 WL 4010226, at *6; Watts, 396 S.W.3d at 131; see also Las Vegas Pecan, 682 S.W.2d 

at 256. However, she preserved her complaint about the omitted Section 

154.130 findings. Mother’s complaint therefore does not fall neatly within either the 

Tenery parameters or those of B.F. for assessing harm. We do not need to decide whether

to apply the presumed-harm analysis of Rule 296 and Tenery or Rule 44.1(a) to measure 

harm in this case, though, because under either standard, the trial court’s error is 

harmless.
16

Under Tenery, we presume harm unless the record shows otherwise, and error is 

harmful if it stops an appellant from properly presenting her case on appeal. Tenery, 

932 S.W.2d at 30. Under Rule 44.1(a), we will not reverse the trial court’s judgment 

because of a legal error unless that error “probably caused the rendition of an improper 

judgment” or “probably prevented the appellant from properly presenting the case to” 

this court. Tex. R. App. P. 44.1(a); see also Romero v. KPH Consol., Inc., 166 S.W.3d 212,

225 (Tex. 2005).

Mother contends that the trial court gave no reason for awarding Father child 

support and no reason for the award’s amount. A finding justifying a child-support

award to Father would not be a Section 154.130 finding because child-support 

guidelines do not dictate the recipient of child support. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 

§§ 153.138, 154.130. Mother waived all findings except Section 154.130 findings. 

Nevertheless, as we held above, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding 

Father child support because the evidence substantiated it. Mother was able to brief the 

issue; we addressed it and held that the trial court’s decision was not improper. Mother 

therefore does not show harm on that ground. See Tex. R. App. 44.1(a); Tenery, 932 

S.W.2d at 30.

Mother also cannot show that the absence of findings about the amount of that 

award—$1,000 per month—harmed her because (1) the absence of findings did not 

block her from effectively challenging the amount of the award on appeal (although she 

does so within her complaint about the omitted findings) and (2) the evidence supports 
17

imposing an even higher monthly child-support obligation on her. Under the childsupport guidelines, an obligor’s child support is 20% of the obligor’s net resources when 

those net resources do not exceed $8,550. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 154.125; 38 Tex. Reg. 

4647, 4647 (2013) (Off. of the Att’y Gen.); Ngwu v. Toni, No. 04-18-00762-CV, 

2019 WL 3307913, at *3 & n.2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 24, 2019, pet. denied)

(mem. op.). Resources in this case include 100 percent of income less social security 

taxes, federal income taxes, and health insurance expenses for the child. See Tex. Fam. 

Code Ann. § 154.062(a), (b)(1), (d). Mother included the following computation of her 

net resources in her financial information:

Monthly Income

Gross Income (from Primary Employment) $9,171.71

Withholding/FICA (1,325.14)

Health Insurance (607.72)

Net Monthly Resources $7,238.95

Mother based her monthly gross income on the income she received for two months’ 

work in 2018 from Cook Children’s, which was thousands less than her average 

monthly income the previous year.3 Even if we accept that number, Family Code 

Section 154.062 allows the trial court to deduct only the child’s insurance costs, not the 

3

Mother had a smaller, second job where she worked on an as-needed basis. That 

income would not affect our disposition of Mother’s issues; we therefore do not address 

it.
18

parent’s, in the net-resources computation. See id. § 154.062(d)(5). The parties stipulated 

that C.L.’s monthly health insurance premium was $235.38. From looking at the 

information Mother provided for 2015, 2016, and 2017, the amount she included for 

health insurance in her financial statement appears to include family insurance costs. 

When we make that correction to Mother’s financial statement, her net resources are 

$7,611.29. Twenty percent of that number is $1,522.26. See id. § 154.125. However, the 

trial court ordered Mother to pay only $1,000 in monthly child support.

Family Code Section 154.123(b) provides a list of factors trial courts shall 

consider in determining that child support in an amount established by the guidelines 

would be unjust or inappropriate. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 154.123(b). Relevant factors in 

this case include:

(1) the age and needs of the child;

(2) the ability of the parents to contribute to the support of the child;

. . .

(4) the amount of time of possession of and access to a child;

(5) the amount of the obligee’s net resources, . . . ;

. . .

(10) whether the obligor or obligee has an automobile . . . or other 

benefits furnished by his . . . employer, another person, or a 

business entity;

. . .

(12) provision for health care insurance and payment of uninsured 

medical expenses;
19

(13) special or extraordinary educational, health care, or other expenses 

of the parties or of the child;

. . .

(16) debts or debt service assumed by either party; and

(17) any other reason consistent with the best interest of the child, 

taking into consideration the circumstances of the parents.

Id.

The evidence at trial showed that C.L. was ten years old, was active in Boy Scouts, 

played baseball, and had attended private school but would soon begin public school.

Mother’s actual time with C.L. during the school year was mainly school nights, while 

Father spent most weekends with him. Mother provided and would continue to provide 

C.L.’s health insurance, but the trial court ordered his uninsured health expenses to be 

split evenly between both parents. Mother was charged with making mortgage and 

credit-card payments pending the sale of the family home (of which she was awarded 

exclusive possession), and then after the home sold, the community debt was to be paid 

off from the net sales proceeds. However, Father had accumulated debt in the 

seventeen months since their separation, which was his sole obligation, and he also 

planned to return to college about a year after trial to obtain a more lucrative career. 

Father’s monthly expenses exceeded his income by almost $400 with no consideration 

of child support, and his expense statement allowed $50 per month for entertainment, 
20

$100 per month for eating out, and $0 for extracurricular activities. However, his 

employer provided him with a vehicle, gasoline, and a cell phone.4

Father wanted the trial court to take his income into account in determining child 

support, and the trial court’s decisions to award each parent the right to receive child 

support and to set Mother’s child-support payment at $1,000 per month show that the 

trial court considered that information as well as the above evidence.5 The trial court 

appears to have followed the child-support guidelines of 20% for both parents, 

implicitly making both parents obligors but subtracting Father’s obligation from 

Mother’s to arrive at a net child-support obligation by Mother. See id. § 154.123(b)(17); 

A.R.W., 2019 WL 6317870, at *8–9. Examining the amounts Mother provided for her 

own net resources and the child support she sought from Father and the amounts

Father provided for his net resources and the amount his child support should offset 

Mother’s child-support obligation, we conclude that the trial court could have arrived 

at a monthly net child-support obligation of approximately $1,015 using either set of 

figures.

Even with child-support findings, Mother could not have shown that she was 

4

The record does not indicate whether Father’s employer provided these for 

personal use.

5

Courts may treat differences between a letter ruling and a final, signed decree as 

modifications within the trial court’s plenary power. In re Marriage of Anderton, No. 07-

11-00243-CV, 2013 WL 3355721, at *4 (Tex. App.—Amarillo June 26, 2013, no pet.)

(mem. op.).
21

harmed by being ordered to pay less than guideline support, nor could she have shown

that she was harmed by being ordered to pay $15 less per month than her own 

computations of her net resources and Father’s proposed child-support obligation

would have allowed. See Walker v. Walker, No. 02-13-00229-CV, 2014 WL 2619147, at 

*4 & n.2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 12, 2014, pet. denied) (mem. op.). Because the 

record supports the trial court’s rulings despite the absence of findings and because the 

absence of findings did not prevent Mother from effectively challenging the amount of 

child support in this court, Mother cannot show that the absence of statutory childsupport findings harmed her under Tenery, 932 S.W.2d at 30, or under Rule 44.1(a), see 

Tex. R. App. 44.1(a); Q.D.S., 2018 WL 1831686, at *8–9; Walker, 2014 WL 2619147, at 

*4 & n.2. We overrule her first issue.

C. Division of the Community Estate

In her third issue, Mother contends that the trial court abused its discretion by 

awarding Father a disproportionate share of the community estate because the evidence 

is factually insufficient to support the decision. A trial court is charged with dividing the 

community estate in a “just and right” manner, considering the rights of both parties. 

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 7.001; Watson v. Watson, 286 S.W.3d 519, 522 (Tex. App.—Fort 

Worth 2009, no pet.); Todd v. Todd, 173 S.W.3d 126, 128–29 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 

2005, pet. denied). The trial court has broad discretion in making a just and right 

division, and absent a clear abuse of discretion, we will not disturb that division. Jacobs

v. Jacobs, 687 S.W.2d 731, 733 (Tex. 1985); Todd, 173 S.W.3d at 129. A party who 
22

complains about the trial court’s property division bears the burden of showing that the 

division was so unjust that the trial court abused its discretion. Zeptner v. Zeptner,

111 S.W.3d 727, 734 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.) (op. on reh’g).

The law does not require a trial court to equally divide a community estate, but 

the division must be equitable. Halleman v. Halleman, 379 S.W.3d 443, 452 (Tex. App.—

Fort Worth 2012, no pet.). A disproportionate division must be supported by some 

reasonable basis. Smith v. Smith, 143 S.W.3d 206, 214 (Tex. App.—Waco 2004, no pet.).

Nonexclusive factors that the trial court may consider in dividing the community 

estate include “the spouses’ capacities and abilities, benefits which the party not at fault 

would have derived from continuation of the marriage, business opportunities, 

education, relative physical conditions, relative financial condition and obligations, 

disparity of ages, size of separate estates, and the nature of the property.” Murff v. Murff, 

615 S.W.2d 696, 699 (Tex. 1981). The trial court may also consider a spouse’s 

dissipation of the community estate and any misuse of it, including fraud on the 

community. Schlueter v. Schlueter, 975 S.W.2d 584, 589–90 (Tex. 1998); Vannerson v. 

Vannerson, 857 S.W.2d 659, 669 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, writ denied). 

Finally, the trial court may consider fault in the breakup of the marriage, although the 

division should not punish the party at fault. Bradshaw v. Bradshaw, 555 S.W.3d 539, 

543 (Tex. 2018) (citing Young v. Young, 609 S.W.2d 758, 761–762 (Tex. 1980)). No single 

factor is controlling. Felix-Forbes v. Forbes, No. 02-15-00121-CV, 2016 WL 3021829, at 

*2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 26, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.); see, e.g., Stafford v. Stafford, 
23

726 S.W.2d 14, 16 (Tex. 1987), overruled on other grounds, Price v. Price, 732 S.W.2d 316 (Tex. 

1987). “In the end, [in a divorce in which a minor child is involved,] ‘the court is to do 

complete equity as between the husband and wife and the child[], having due regard to 

all obligations of the spouses and to the probable future necessities of all concerned.’”

Bradshaw, 555 S.W.3d at 543 (quoting Hedtke v. Hedtke, 248 S.W. 21, 22 (1923)).

Mother relies on Hanson v. Hanson, 672 S.W.2d 274, 277 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[14th Dist.] 1984, writ dism’d), for the proposition that the law does not compel the 

trial court to award a spouse more than half the community estate even when that 

spouse has much less income or earning capacity than the other spouse. We agree with 

that proposition. Mother attempts, however, to transform that holding into a binding 

rule for this court that the trial court abuses its discretion by awarding a spouse a 

disproportionate share of the estate when that spouse does not present evidence of 

financial need. We reject this attempt and reiterate that we review the trial court’s 

decision for an abuse of discretion, and no one factor drives that decision. Jacobs, 

687 S.W.2d at 733; Felix-Forbes, 2016 WL 3021829, at *2.

The trial court received the following evidence pertinent to the division of the 

community estate:

• Mother had always earned significantly more than Father during the 

marriage;

• Mother’s income at trial was at least four times Father’s income;

• At his previous job, Father made $28,000 to $30,000 annually;
24

• Mother admitted that Father could not have supported himself on that 

salary;

• Father had taken a new job after the separation to make more money;

• Father’s annual income at trial—$35,000—was the most he had ever 

made;

• Father’s monthly expenses after he moved out of the family home 

outpaced his monthly income;

• Mother had no knowledge of Father receiving job offers for higher pay;

• Father would need five years to go back to college for a more lucrative 

career;

• Mother’s career was already established;

• Father thought he should receive a disproportionate share of the 

retirement funds because Mother had the potential to “earn a lot more,” 

while he needed to be able to provide for C.L. and himself until he could 

get another degree and begin to earn more;

• Mother admitted that she had the ability to make “quite [a] bit more 

income” than Father had;

• Mother had 100% control of the finances and investments during the 

marriage;

• During the marriage, Father had no idea how much money they had in 

the bank or how much debt they were in;

• Mother admitted to withdrawing $35,000 from her retirement account 

without informing Father;6

6

Mother testified that she had borrowed money from her retirement account on 

two occasions “in the last couple of years” and that the money had been used to pay 

household debt, to pay off Father’s pickup, and to pay for surgeries. She did not support 

her testimony with any documentation. In any event, the reasons for and effects of 

these withdrawals on the community property division were credibility issues to be 
25

• The parties estimated that the net sales proceeds from the sale of their 

house would be approximately $65,000 to $80,000 dollars;

• The parties had approximately $35,000 to $40,000 of credit-card debt 

before the divorce;7

• The couple owed the IRS almost $6,000;

• Father had $21,738 in his retirement account from his former job;

• Mother had $402,000 in her retirement account;

• Father sacrificed during the marriage to advance Mother’s career;

• During the marriage, Father cared for their son every weekend while 

Mother worked her three twelve-hour shifts and slept;

• Mother’s career took priority over their home life and over Father’s career;

• Mother and Father grew apart because their work schedules did not give 

them much time together;

• Father was shocked and devastated when he found out about Mother’s 

affair;

• Mother continued the affair while they attended counseling, and Father 

thought they were trying to reconcile;

• Father had not wanted a divorce;

• Father had not been prepared for the economic impact of the divorce;

determined by the trial court. See, e.g., Logsdon v. Logsdon, No. 02-14-00045-CV, 

2015 WL 7690034, at *8 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 25, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.); 

Prentiss v. Prentiss, No. 02-10-00476-CV, 2012 WL 858592, at *4 (Tex. App.—Fort 

Worth Mar. 15, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.).

7

Mother claimed that Father had a Citi credit card, ending in 0000, with a balance 

of $5,000, but Father denied it. The trial court awarded the debt to Mother. See, e.g., 

Logsdon, 2015 WL 7690034, at *8; Prentiss, 2012 WL 858592, at *4.
26

• Mother admitted that but for her affair and her requesting the divorce, 

Father would still want to be married;

• If Father and Mother had stayed together, they had discussed his going

back to school for an advanced degree so that he could begin a different 

career; and

• Father was forty-two years old at the time of divorce.

The evidence listed above is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial 

court’s disproportionate division of the estate. The trial court properly considered 

Mother’s decisions to have an affair and to ask for a divorce after a lengthy marriage, 

the disparity in Father’s and Mother’s current incomes and future earning capacities,

Father’s age relative to his ability to build a retirement in the future, Mother’s total 

control of the finances and investments during the marriage, Mother’s secretly 

borrowing from her retirement fund, the couple’s high credit-card debt and federal 

income-tax debt, Father’s need to support himself and C.L. even with Mother’s childsupport payments, and Father’s additional need to fund his college plans while 

supporting himself and C.L. Thus, the trial court had sufficient evidence upon which 

to base the disproportionate division of the community estate, and the record shows 

that the decision was reasonable. We therefore hold that the trial court did not abuse 

its discretion by making the unequal division. See, e.g., Felix-Forbes, 2016 WL 3021829, 

at *5–6. We overrule Mother’s third issue.

III. Conclusion

Having overruled Mother’s three issues, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
27

/s/ Mike Wallach

Mike Wallach

Justice

Delivered: July 30, 2020