William P. Klages v. Rita E. Klages, 03-20-00086-CV

William and Rita Klages divorced in 2017 and share one child (born 2005); William sought modification of child support in 2018.
William lives in California and testified he earns an $80,000 base salary from QA Consultants USA, Inc., is eligible for a bonus up to $40,000, and earns 5% commissions; he claimed reduced income and sought lower support.
Rita (managing conservator with primary possession) had little income at the hearing and testified she pays 100% of the child’s activities and half of therapy costs; she identified golf expenses of $200–$800/month and therapy at $150/session.
At trial the court initially denied William’s request, but then sua sponte granted a modification reducing support to $1,350/month, finding William’s monthly net resources $4,529.49, Rita’s net resources $0, and applying 29.8% to the first $4,529.49.
The court found the child’s proven needs (including extracurriculars) and William’s lack of possession supported deviation from the statutory guideline amount; William appealed, arguing the deviation was unsupported and the guideline amount should have been about $905.90.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering child support above the Family Code guideline amount	William: deviation unsupported; guideline presumptive amount (≈$905.90) or his proposed $850 should apply; child’s needs at most $650/month	Rita: proven needs (golf, therapy), her near-zero income, and her sole possession of the child justify support above guidelines; William is eligible for substantial bonus and commissions	Affirmed. Court held there was legally and factually sufficient evidence to support deviation; no abuse of discretion

Nordstrom v. Nordstrom, 965 S.W.2d 575 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997) (extent of modification lies within trial court’s discretion)
Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. 1990) (child-support orders reviewed for abuse of discretion)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for legal and factual sufficiency review)
Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 860 S.W.2d 414 (Tex. 1993) (support above guidelines must be based on child’s proven needs)
Iliff v. Iliff, 339 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2011) (best interest of the child is paramount in determining needs)
Coburn v. Moreland, 433 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. App.—Austin 2014) (abuse-of-discretion review in family-law context and overlap with sufficiency review)
Zeifman v. Michels, 212 S.W.3d 582 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006) (legal/factual sufficiency factors relevant to abuse-of-discretion review)
Hatteberg v. Hatteberg, 933 S.W.2d 522 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994) (trial court as sole judge of witness credibility)
Zajac v. Penkava, 924 S.W.2d 405 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996) (estimates of past/future expenses are relevant to support determinations)
Yarbrough v. Yarbrough, 151 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. App.—Waco 2004) (managing conservator’s testimony and expense list can supply sufficient basis for support findings)