in the Interest of A.M.P., 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 4052

This is an appeal from a trial court modification order in a suit affecting a parent-child relationship involving Poell and the child A.M.P.
Poell sought to increase child support; Kohl sought to reduce it and obtain a standard possession order.
Poell contends Kohl fraudulently induced her to agree to a Rule 11 agreement by claiming unemployment when Kohl was employed.
Kohl’s mother funded “the Sums,” alleged advances tied to Kohl’s inheritance, which Poell argues should be treated as gifts or resources.
The trial court reduced Kohl’s monthly support from $586 to $267 and issued related possession orders; Poell appealed the denial of her fraud claim and the net-resources calculation.
The court affirms denial of the fraudulent-inducement claim but reverses and remands on the net-resources/child-support calculation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Fraud claim viability and relief	Poell argues Kohl fraudulently induced the Rule 11 agreement by claiming unemployment.	Kohl contends the trial court could resolve the claim based on evidence at bench trial.	Affirmed denial of recovery on the fraud claim.
Net resources determination for child support	Sums should be considered Kohl’s resources, not a loan; exclude would understate support.	Sums are a loan/advance on inheritance and should be excluded from net resources.	Evidence insufficient to show Sums were a loan; excluding them was error; remand for proper net-resources calculation.
Modification of child support under guidelines	If Sums are included, the 267 figure should align with guideline-based amounts.	Court can modify if changed circumstances justify adjustment under guidelines.	Trial court abused discretion by reducing to 267 without proper guideline-calculation findings; remand.

Navarro v. Grant Thornton, LLP, 316 S.W.3d 715 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (fraud claims require independent bases; affirm when not all elements shown)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (abuse-of-discretion standard; evidentiary sufficiency relates to discretion)
Woodall v. Woodall, 837 S.W.2d 856 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992) (earlier rule excluding certain gifts from net resources; disapproved on point by Iliff)
Iliff v. Iliff, 339 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2011) (disapproved Woodall; no requirement of intent to decrease support for modification)
In re P.C.S., 320 S.W.3d 525 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010) (cash inheritance treated as a resource under §154.062(b))
Miller v. Omodele, No. 14-01-00999-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003) (mem op. related to guideline application (cited for context))
In re D.S., 76 S.W.3d 512 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) (guidelines-based modification standards; best interest standard)
Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. 1990) (abuse-of-discretion standard for child-support modifications)