John T. Boy d, C hie f Just ic e ( Ret .) , Se ven th C o urt of Appea ls , s it ti ng by 1 ass ig nment. Tex . G ov ’tC ode An n. §7 5.002( a) (1 ) (V er non 200 5)

. NO. 07-07 -007 2-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL E JAN UA RY

21, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ IN THE IN TERES T OF G.K. D. , A CH ILD

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE COU NT Y COUR T AT LAW NO. 3 O F L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; NO. 96-55 8,3 41; HON. PAULA LA NEHART , PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK, JJ., a nd BO YD , S.J. 1
ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON
In on e po int, ap pellan t She rry K ay Lesle y

(Lesley) conte nds th e trial court erred in faili ng to aw ard s uff ici e n t retroact iv e c hil d s uppor t i n i ts order

i ncreasi ng ch il d s uppor t t o be pai d by appel lee Grant Duk es (D ukes ). In it s Dec ember 21, 2006 order g iv ing ri se to th i s a p p e a l , t h e t r i a l c o u rt i n c r e a s e d t h e a mo u n t o f mo n t h l y c h i l d s u p p o rt d ue byD ukes retroact iv ely f rom Oct obe r 1, 2 006

. In this ap pea l, Lesley arg ues th at th e increase d child supp ort payme nts sho uld ha v e be en o rdered f rom th e Jan u a ry 1 7 , 2 006 f iling of Dukes’2

answ er to her req uestfor i ncreased ch il d s uppor t. D is ag re ein g thatthe tr ial co urt er re d,
w e aff ir m it s j udg ment. Di sc uss ion T he Family Code giv es a trial court autho rity to retroa ctiv ely mo dif y child su p port obl ig a ti o ns acc ru ing after the ear li er

of the d ate o f ser

v ic e of ci tati on or

the date of the appearance of the respon dent in suc h an act io n . T e x. Fam. C ode An n. §1 56.401( b) (V er non 2008)

. The re cord re v eal s that Lesl ey ’s moti on to i ncrease chi ld suppo rtw as filed on D ecember

20, 2005, Duk es w as ser v ed w it h c it ati on on Dec ember 26, 20 0 5 , a n d he
answ ered th e moti on on Janua ry 17, 2006. T he trial cou rt orig inally set th e he aring on the mot ion on May 22, 20 06. Becau se of a death in hi s famil y , Lesl ey ’s counsel soug ht an d obt ain ed a cont inu ance unti l Jul y 11, 2006. On Jul y

10, 2006, Lesl ey ’s counsel , all eg ing that both he and Duk es’ att or ney had confli cti ng tr ial se tti ng s, obtai ned a cont inu ance and the matter w as re setfor A ug ust10, 2 0 0 6

. O n A u g ust9, Lesl ey ’s co unsel so ug ht an other co nti nuanc e on the b asi s t hat h e
w ould be o u to f

tow n on August 10 , and thatDukes’ atto rney w as set for app eara nce in another co urt. This moti on w as g ra nted and t he hear ing resetfor O cto ber 19, 2006. On S ept e m b e r 1 5, 20 06, L esl ey ’s co unsel amended her moti on to modi fy and added a co unt s eeki ng the modified ch il d s uppor t retroact iv e to the e ar li e r o f t he ti me of
ser v ic e of ci tati on upon D ukes or the ti me of his appearance on th e modi ficat ion moti on. The moti on w as heard at the s chedu led ti me of Oct ober 19, 2006. O n D e cember 21, 2006, the tr ial courtentered the order gi v ing ris e to thi s appeal

. In t he order , as mater ial to t his appeal , i t i ncl uded a prov is ion prov idi ng for i ncreased ch il d s uppor t from Oct ober

1, 2006. As w e hav e noted, in her one is sue, Lesl ey cont ends the t ri al cour t rev ersi bly

er re d3

in not o rd er ing the inc re ased chi ld suppo rtretroact iv e to Janu a ry 17, 2006, the d ate o f Duk es’ ans w er

to her moti on s eeki ng i ncreased ch il d s uppor t. W e rev iew

the deci si on of the tr ial co urt i n matt ers suc h as thi s under an abuse of dis creti on s tandard w hic h oc cu rs w hen t he j udg e ac ts w it hout re ferenc e to any g uid ing
ru les or pr inc ipl es. See In r

e T uck er , 96 S.W .3d 6 62, 6 68 ( Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana 2003, no pet .). In ma king that de cision, w e be ar in mind thatw hile the exi sten ce of ev iden ce supp orting the trial court’s de cision dep end s n ot only on wheth er it a cted w ithou t referen ce to g uid ing r ule s a nd pr inc ipl es but w hether the ev ide nce suppo rt s i t dec is ion

. Nor dst ro m
v. Nor dst ro m , 965 S. W .2d 5 75, 582 (Tex . App.–H oust on [1 Dis t.] 1997, pet. deni ed) ; In st
re Ham er

, 906 S.W .2d 263, 265 n.1(Tex . App.–Amar il lo 1995, no w ri t)

. Al so, i n per forming that tas k, w e re v iew the ev ide nce in a li g ht most fav orabl e to the t ri al cour t’ s d eci si on, a nd
w e must indul g e in ev er y presu mpti on fav or ing the jud g ment. In r e T uck er , 96 S.W .3d a t 665. Here, the ev iden ce wa s f o cused chief ly upo n Dukes’ increa sed n et resou rces. There w as ev ide nce that w hil e Les ley prov ide d the ch il d’s resi dence i n Mar ble Fall s, she ag re ed th at they als o li v ed in Horses hoe Bay

. There w as ev ide nce she had remarr ied and
occ upi ed a home v alu ed atone mil li on dol lars. H er hus band w as in t h e real es tate busi ness w hil e s he operated a proper ty renov ati on bus ine ss . Duk es tes ti fied th at he had pur chas ed a dupl ex

i n H orses hoe Ba y

and w hen he trav ele d from hi s h ome in Abi len e to spend hi s d esi g nated w eeken ds w it h G. K.D ., he s tay ed th ere because that li v ing arrangem entprovi ded a bet ter environme nt for G.K.D. th an a hote l room. The ev iden ce also show ed th at D ukes freq uentl y trav ele d to G.K. D. ’s Thursday ni g ht j uni or

v arsi ty4

g ames. H e furni shed an ex pense su mmary sh ow ing thatthe cos t of the tr ips to Horses hoe Bay and the p ur chas e ex pense s o f the dupl ex amounte d to some $ 4,000 per month. The pur pose of a ward in g re troact iv e c hil d s uppor t i s t o remov e any

moti v e by

an obligor to dela y

procee dings beca use a bsen t such po w er, the re w ould be con s id erab le motive to d o s o . In re H.S.N. , 69 S.W .3d 8 29, 8 33 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2002, no pet .). Althou gh fo r appa rent good reason s, and w ith the agreeme nt of Dukes, Le sley’ s three moti ons for c onti nuanc e nev erthel ess added fiv e months to the p re tr ial per iod

. W e also no te th at it w as on ly af ter obt aining three contin uan ces an d w it h t rial a
m o n th a way th a t Le sle y so u ght re tr o a ct ive chi ld su p p o rt fo r th e f irs t tim e . A lt h o u gh Lesl ey ’s moti on c ontai ned fair noti ce of he r cl aim for re troact iv e chi ld suppo rt , w e find that the t imi ng of that req uest , tog ether w it h the evi dence produc ed at the hear ing , i s s uff ic ien t to j ust ify the tr ial cour

t’ s dis creti on in li miti ng the per iod of the retroact iv ity to Oct ober

1, the firs t day of the mont h foll ow ing se rv ic e of Lesl ey ’s amended moti on. Acc ordin g ly , Les ley ’s i ss ue i s o v er ru led , and the order of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

J o h n T

. B o yd Seni or Ju sti ce