in the Interest of A.S.G., J.N.G., and J.D.G., Minor Children, 345 S.W.3d 443

Final divorce decree (Mar. 24, 2005) required Guerra to pay $1,500/month in child support and $1,000/month toward a $10,000 arrearage.
In Oct. 2006 Maria Guerra sought enforcement alleging $12,788.91 arrearage; trial court found Guerra in contempt and ordered a $2,000 lump sum to avoid jail.
March 26, 2007 modification reduced Guerra’s current child support to $800/month; court upheld arrears at $12,077.42 with conditions: $1,500 lump sum and $100/month toward arrearage.
December 2008 Maria moved to enforce; January 29, 2009 order found Guerra in contempt for 2008- period nonpayment and sentenced him; no attorney’s fees awarded in that order.
November 10, 2009 Maria moved to clarify to include $2,500 in attorney’s fees; December 9, 2009 amended order awarded $2,500 in attorney’s fees for the 2008 enforcement action—appealed as void due to expired plenary power.
January 25, 2010 court entered order enforcing 2009 payments, finding $1,285 arrearage and $1,000 in attorney’s fees for the 2009 enforcement; Guerra appeals consolidated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to amend for fees	Guerra contends court had no jurisdiction to amend after plenary power expired.	Maria argues clerical amendment within plenary powers permitted, or to clarify ambiguous terms.	Amendment void; plenary power expired; vacate December 9, 2009 order.
Sufficiency of evidence for 2009 arrearage	Guerra asserts no arrears for 2009 since he overpaid in some months.	Maria shows monthly shortfalls and application order under §157.268; arrears established at $1,285.	Clear evidence supports $1,285 arrearage for 2009; no abuse of discretion.
Attorney’s fees for 2009 enforcement	Guerra challenges $1,000 fees as unsupported by evidence of reasonableness/hourly rate.	Rivera testified to experience and necessity; reasonable fees awarded by statute and discretion.	Court’s award of $1,000 fees affirmed; fee evidence sufficient and properly segregated for the enforcement motion.

Lundy v. Lundy, 973 S.W.2d 687 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1998) (clarification orders after plenary powers may be void)
In re A.C.B., 103 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003) (ambiguity needed to alter prior child support order after plenary power)
In re A.L.G., 229 S.W.3d 783 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007) (implies findings of fact in support of enforcement orders)
Arth ur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equip. Corp., 945 S.W.2d 812 (Tex. 1997) (fees must be proven as reasonably incurred and necessary)
Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. v. Chapa, 212 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. 2006) (fee-segregation requirements generally acknowledged)
In re C.Z.B., 151 S.W.3d 627 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004) (trial court has broad discretion in awarding attorney’s fees in enforcement)
Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. 1990) (standard to uphold enforcement orders; abuse of discretion)
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (finality and modification after award; denial of finality indicators)
In re H.G., 267 S.W.3d 120 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008) (post-judgment amendments require jurisdiction)
Coleman v. Sitel Corp., 21 S.W.3d 411 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000) (de novo review of jurisdiction to amend judgments)
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (clarifies plenary power and finality concepts)