in the Interest of H. L. H., a Child
12-20-00247-CV
Tex. App.Oct 20, 2021Background
- R.H. and L.A.G. divorced; child H.L.H. born of the marriage. Original child support was $400/month (2009); in 2012 support was increased to $493/month based on the trial court’s finding that R.H.’s net monthly resources were $2,513.47.
- In December 2019 L.A.G. filed to modify child support, alleging material and substantial changed circumstances and asking for an increase.
- At the August 2020 hearing, R.H.’s 2018 tax return showed $1,107,570 in gross receipts but only $22,042 adjusted gross income after large deductions (labor, materials, mileage, depreciation). R.H. testified he withdraws roughly $2,000–$3,000/month from the business and claimed ordinary business write-offs.
- Evidence also showed significant personal expenditures (new truck, RV, beach lots, equipment payments, dirt bikes, mortgage and property taxes) that the court found inconsistent with the low reported income. R.H. was found evasive and uncooperative.
- The trial court concluded R.H.’s financial circumstances had materially and substantially changed, calculated net monthly resources (conservatively) as $8,051.46, applied a 17.5% guideline percentage, and ordered child support of $1,409/month (retroactive to service). R.H. appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (L.A.G.) | Defendant's Argument (R.H.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a material and substantial change in financial circumstances to modify support | L.A.G. argued R.H.’s lifestyle and evidence of higher income show a material/substantial increase in resources since 2012 | R.H. argued movant failed to prove historical and current finances and produced only scant evidence | Court: Sufficient probative evidence; trial court did not abuse discretion and could find changed circumstances (issues 1, 5, 6 overruled) |
| Whether the trial court correctly calculated R.H.’s net resources under Family Code guidelines | L.A.G. relied on trial court’s inference from gross receipts, profit estimates, and expenditures to compute net resources | R.H. argued the court made incorrect assumptions and misapplied rules for self-employed persons | Court: Calculation supported by evidence; trial court permissibly rejected applying self-employed table because it would credit taxes R.H. did not pay (issue 2 overruled) |
| Whether the trial court’s findings adequately disclose how gross income and net resources were computed | L.A.G. urged findings and ruling were adequate to show the basis for the award | R.H. argued findings failed to show the detailed arithmetic and thus were inadequate | Court: Findings identified net monthly resources, percentage applied, and justification for methodology; compliant with statutory requirements (issue 3 overruled) |
| Alleged internal inconsistency in court’s income findings (e.g., $138,000 vs. potential $181,000+) | L.A.G. maintained court properly used conservative estimates and explained basis | R.H. argued the finding of $138,000 was arbitrary and inconsistent with other findings | Court: Factfinder may draw reasonable inferences; any variations are not reversible and do not show abuse (issue 4 overruled) |
Key Cases Cited
- Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) (abuse of discretion standard for trial-court decisions)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency review and deference to factfinder credibility and reasonable inferences)
- Gillespie v. Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449 (Tex. 1982) (reversal only when trial court clearly abused discretion)
- Catalina v. Blasdel, 881 S.W.2d 295 (Tex. 1994) (standards for reviewing findings of fact for legal and factual sufficiency)
- Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986) (factual-sufficiency standard: set aside finding only if against overwhelming weight of evidence)