Iliff v. Iliff
339 S.W.3d 74
| Tex. | 2011Background
- Jerilyn Iliff and James Iliff married in 1990 and had three children; James was the high-earning spouse in the chemical industry.
- James quit his job in January 2006 and had no steady employment thereafter, with minimal earnings from tractor operation and sporadic consulting (~$3,600–$4,800 over two years).
- Jerilyn filed for divorce in June 2006; final decree May 5, 2008; Jerilyn appointed sole managing conservator and James required to pay child support.
- Trial court found James intentionally unemployed/underemployed and applied Texas Family Code section 154.066 to earnings potential rather than actual earnings.
- Trial court concluded James’s earning potential was at least $5,000/month with net resources ~$3,662.09/month, ordering $1,295.19/month child support for three children.
- Court of appeals affirmed; question presented was whether proof of intent to avoid child support is required to apply the earning-potential approach.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is proof of intent to avoid child support required under 154.066? | Iliff: yes, must show intent to avoid support. | Iliff: no, statute doesn't require purpose proof. | No, intent proof is not required. |
| May trial court apply guidelines to earning potential without proving avoidance intent? | Iliff urged strict intent requirement. | Iliff argued discretion allows earning-potential application. | Yes, court may apply earning potential without proof of avoidance intent. |
| Can intent be considered as a factor in earning-potential analysis? | Iliff: not relevant if no intent proven. | Iliff: intent can be a relevant consideration. | Court may consider intent as a factor among others. |
| What is the burden and sequence of proof in applying 154.066? | Iliff: burden on showing actual wages suffices. | Iliff: burden shifts to obligor if intentional unemployment shown. | Obligee must show current wages; then burden may shift to obligor for rebuttal. |
Key Cases Cited
- McIntyre v. Ramirez, 109 S.W.3d 741 (Tex. 2003) (statutory interpretation; plain meaning governs when unambiguous)
- Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer, 535 S.W.2d 425 (Tex. 1977) (duty to support children; cannot evade via voluntary unemployment)
- Montgomery Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Davis, 34 S.W.3d 559 (Tex. 2000) (trial court credibility; sole judge of witnesses' weight)
- Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 860 S.W.2d 414 (Tex. 1993) (standard of review for child support discretion)
- Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. 1990) (abuse of discretion standard in child support)