in the Interest of A.V.T., a Child, 04-19-00544-CV

Background

Mother filed a Motion to Enforce Cash Medical Support and to Modify child support; the trial court modified Father’s child support and ordered him to pay medical-support arrears; Father appealed.
The original order required Father to pay 50% of uninsured medical expenses; Mother’s motion sought $214.08 but at trial she sought reimbursement for additional uninsured expenses and the court ordered Father to pay $445.86.
Mother admitted she had not given Father prior notice of the additional uninsured expenses before the hearing.
Mother testified Father receives an annuity from a personal-injury settlement, including a $100,000 lump-sum payment; Father is incarcerated and not employed.
The trial court found Father’s monthly net resources were $1,070 (a figure that appeared in the original order) and, accounting for the lump sum, calculated monthly net resources of $9,904 for Aug. 8, 2018–May 5, 2019, and used those figures to set support.
The court of appeals reversed the enforcement order for uninsured medical expenses (lack of notice) and reversed and remanded the modification order because there was no evidence supporting the $1,070 monthly figure used in the court’s calculation; remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Father’s Argument	Held
1. Motion to enforce unpaid uninsured medical expenses — was the trial court allowed to order reimbursement for amounts beyond those pleaded?	Mother sought enforcement of the original 50% obligation and argued the trial court could order reimbursement for the uninsured expenses presented at hearing.	Father argued Mother’s motion pleaded only $214.08 and she failed to give notice required by Tex. Fam. Code §157.002 for additional amounts, so he had no opportunity to pay/defend.	Reversed as to uninsured medical expenses: Mother failed to give required notice of amounts beyond $214.08; Father did not waive the notice defect. Remanded.
2. Inclusion of annuity/structured-settlement payments in net resources — must court segregate return of principal?	Mother treated the annuity payments (and lump sum) as income/resources available to Father for support.	Father argued the court must determine what portion of annuity payments are return of principal (non‑resources) vs. interest (resources), relying on In re A.A.G.	Court followed precedent rejecting a required principal/interest apportionment; annuities are included in "resources" per statute, but court still must have evidence of amounts. It did not adopt an A.A.G. apportionment rule here.
3. Sufficiency of evidence for monthly net-resource amounts used to calculate support (specifically the $1,070 and resulting $9,904)	Mother pointed to the original order, her testimony about annuity payments (including testimony about a $100,000 lump sum and a possible monthly amount), and argued some evidence supported modification.	Father argued the $1,070 monthly figure (used by the trial court) was not supported by evidence at the modification hearing and thus the court abused its discretion in its calculations.	Reversed as to modification calculations: evidence supported existence of a $100,000 lump sum but not the $1,070 monthly figure or the $9,904 monthly calculation based on it; trial court abused its discretion in relying on unsupported monthly figures. Remanded.
4. Whether modification was permissible (material and substantial change) given Father’s incarceration and annuity	Mother argued changed circumstances (new child, private school, sole caretaking by Mother, Father’s lump sum and annuity, incarceration) supported modification.	Father argued incarceration and lack of evidence of net resources precluded modification or required finding he had no resources.	Affirmed in part: there was some evidence of material and substantial change to permit modification inquiry; the court did not abuse discretion in deciding a change occurred. But remand required to properly determine net resources and recalculate support.

Key Cases Cited

In re H.G.-J., 503 S.W.3d 679 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016) (motion for enforcement must give opposing party notice of claims to prepare a defense)
In re A.A.G., 303 S.W.3d 739 (Tex. App.—Waco 2009) (court discussed dividing annuity payments between return of principal and interest for support calculations)
In re J.A.J., 283 S.W.3d 495 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2009) (abuse of discretion is standard of review for child-support modification)
Trammell v. Trammell, 485 S.W.3d 571 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016) (burden on movant to prove material and substantial change for modification)
Bush v. Bush, 336 S.W.3d 722 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (discussing how legal and factual sufficiency inform abuse-of-discretion review)