Court Opinion

ID: 9777966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:29:06.583314+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:02.825880
License: Public Domain

JORDAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent to that part of the majority opinion which deals with the amount of child support ordered.
Even though a trial court has wide discretion regarding the amount of child support payments, and each case must stand on its own facts, the determination of that amount must be supported by evidence that the children’s needs are as much as the amount specified in the order. Holmes v. Tibbs, 542 S.W.2d 487, 488 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1976, no writ).
In this case I find that the amount of child support ordered, in conjunction with the wife’s salary, is $400.00 over the amount of expenses shown. Accordingly, I find the amount of child support ordered constitutes an abuse of the trial court’s discretion and would reverse the judgment and remand the cause for a new trial on the issue of child support.
As the majority points out the trial court found in its findings of fact and conclusions of law that appellant’s gross income equaled $5,410.00. This finding was unchallenged; therefore, we will accept it as fact, conflicting testimony to the contrary. See Maben v. Maben, 574 S.W.2d 229, 232 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1978, no writ); cf. TEX.R.CIV.P. 298. The trial court also found that appellee grosses $1,520.00 per month. We note the financial statement signed by appellee shows this figure to be her net income, not her gross; but, again the trial court’s finding has gone unchallenged and we must accept it as true. See Maben, 574 S.W.2d at 232.
The trial court further found, that at the time of trial, appellee’s average monthly living expenses with both children were $2,248.00. The difference between appel-lee’s monthly expenses and her gross sala*396ry is $728.00. Thus, in this case, the evidence does not support an order of child support in the amount of $1,100.00. See id,.; see also Angel v. Todd, 368 S.W.2d 224, 227 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1963, no writ).
Moreover, the child support order is unreasonable in light of the unequal distribution of the couple’s community assets and the earning capacity of each party. The unequal distribution of the community assets has been noted by the majority. Turning to a review of the earning capacities of the parties, I would point out the respective salaries of the parties has been set forth previously. However, it must be emphasized that appellant works two jobs while appellee holds one. Further, appellee testified she would have no trouble getting another job with her skills.
For the reasons set forth above I would reverse the judqment and remand the cause for a new trial on the issue of child support.