OPINION
I. Introduction
In twо issues, Appellant Lou Crane appeals from the trial court’s denial of her motion for periodic review and for continuation of spousal maintenance. We reverse and remand.
II. Background
Appellant and Donald Crane, appellee, were divorced on Seрtember 10, 1999. In the final decree of divorce, the trial court ordered Appellee to pay Appellant spousal maintenance of $225.00 per week from June 25, 1999, through July 30, 1999, and the reduced amount of $160.00 per week from August 6, 1999, through the last Friday in December of 2002, or until she remarried, whichеver occurred first. 1 In *278 July 2003, alleging continuing physical disability and inability to work, Appellant filed a motion to confirm spousal maintenance arrearage and request for periodic review of spousal maintenance to determine whether disability is continuing, seeking an indefinite cоntinuation of spousal maintenance. 2
At the hearing on the motion, Dr. Dennis Lehman, Appellant’s primary care physician for over fifteen years, testified that Appellant has suffered from fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, and depression since 1991. In 1996, he had diagnosed Appеllant as totally disabled. Dr. Lehman testified at the hearing that Appellant’s condition has not worsened since the divorce in 1999, and that, in general, her condition has stabilized. By contrast, when asked about the changes in her condition since the divorce, Appellant responded that her migraine headaches last longer, she drops things more frequently, her balance has not improved, and sometimes just stepping into an air-conditioned room and inhaling the air makes her whole body hurt.
After hearing all the testimony, the trial court found that Appellant “cannot support herself at appropriate employment because of the incapacitating physical disability which she was found to be under at the time of divorce” and that she lacks sufficient property or income to meet her minimum reasonable needs. However, the triаl court found that she did not show a material or substantial change of circumstances as required by Texas Family Code section 8.057. See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 8.057(c) (Vernon Supp.2005). Therefore, the trial court denied Appellant’s motion for the continuation of spousal maintenance.
III. Spousal Maintenance
The lеgislative purpose in enacting provisions for spousal maintenance was to provide temporary and rehabilitative support for a spouse whose ability for self-support is lacking or has deteriorated over time while engaged in homemaking activities and whosе capital assets are insufficient to provide support.
Deltuva v. Deltuva,
In a suit for dissolution of a marriage ..., the court may order maintenance for either spouse only if:
[[Image here]]
(2) the duration of the marriage was 10 years or longer, the sрouse seeking maintenance lacks sufficient property, including property distributed to the spouse under this code, to provide for the spouse’s minimum reasonable needs, as limited by Section 8.054, and the spouse seeking maintenance:
(A) is unable to support himself or herself through appropriate employment because of an incapacitating physical or mental disability!!]
*279 Tex. Fam.Code ANN. § 8.051 (Vernon Supp. 2005).
Section 8.054 of the Texas Family Code, governing the duration of the maintenance order, limits section 8.051. See id. At the time this case was commenced, section 8.054 provided as fоllows:
(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a court:
(1) may not order maintenance that remains in effect for more than three years after the date of the order; and
(2) shall limit the duration of a maintenance order to the shortest reasonable period that allows the spouse seeking maintenance to meet the spouse’s minimum reasonable needs by obtaining appropriate employment or developing an appropriate skill, unless the ability of the spouse to provide for the spouse’s minimum reasonable needs through employment is substantially or totally diminished becausе of:
(A) physical or mental disability;
(B) duties as the custodian of an infant or young child; or
(C) another compelling impediment to gainful employment.
(b) If a spouse seeking maintenance is unable to support himself or herself through appropriate employment because of an incapacitating physical or mental disability, the court may order maintenance for an indefinite period for as long as the disability continues. The court may order periodic review of its order, on the request of either party or on its own motion, to determine whether the disability is continuing. The continuation of spousal maintenance under these circumstances is subject to a motion to modify as prоvided by Section 8.057.
Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 8.054(a) (Vernon Supp.2005); Act of May 22, 2001, 77th Leg., R.S., ch. 807, § 1, 2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 1574, 1576-77, amended by Act of May 25, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., ch. 914, § 3, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 3146, 3147 (current version at Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 8.054(b) (Vernon Supp.2005)).
Section 8.057 outlines the requirements for modification of a maintenance order, providing as follows:
(a) The amount of mаintenance specified in a court order or the portion of a decree that provides for the support of a former spouse may be reduced by the filing of a motion in the court that originally rendered the order. A party affected by the order or the portiоn of the decree to be modified may file the motion.
[[Image here]]
(c)After a hearing, the court may modify an original or modified order or portion of a decree providing for maintenance on a proper showing of a material and substantial change in circumstances of еither party. The court shall apply the modification only to payment accruing after the filing of the motion to modify.
[[Image here]]
Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 8.057. Thus, the amount of maintenance ordered may be reduced by filing a motion to modify with the court that originally rendered the order. Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 8.057(a); see Jim Loveless, Maintenanсe, Contractual Alimony, Money Judgment and Other Tips for Post Divorce Spousal Support, State Bae of Texas 31st Annual Advanced Family Law CouRSE supplement at 3 (Aug. 2005).
IV. Characterization of Action
In her first issue, Appellant contends that because she filed a request for an indefinite continuation of spousal maintenаnce under Texas Family Code section *280 8.054(b), rather than a motion to modify maintenance under section 8.057, the trial court erred by imposing on her the burden to prove a material and substantial change in the circumstances of either party. We agree.
Subject to the exception provided by section 8.054(b), spousal maintenance may not last more than three years after the date of the order imposing the maintenance. Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 8.054(a). Section 8.054(b) of the family code, however, authorizes the court, upon a finding that a spouse is unablе to support himself or herself through appropriate employment because of an incapacitating physical or mental disability, to order spousal maintenance for an indefinite period for as long as the disability continues. Act of May 22, 2001, 77th Leg., R.S., ch. 807, § 1, 2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 1574, 1576-77,
amended by
Act of May 25, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., ch. 914, § 3, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 3146, 3147;
Pickens,
Unlike a motion to modify maintenance where the movant is required to prove a material and substantial change in circumstances of one of the parties before the court can modify its prior order to reduce or terminate maintenance, a request for the trial court to review continuation of the spousal maintenance order appears to place no special burden of proof on the movant other than to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his or her disability is continuing.
See
Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 8.057(c); Act of May 22, 2001, 77th Leg., R.S., ch. 807, § 1, 2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 1574, 1576-77,
amended by
Act of May 25, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., ch. 914, § 3, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 3146, 3147;
Carlin,
Simply labeling an action as a motion for continuation, rather than a motiоn to modify maintenance, is not sufficient to invoke section 8.054(b); rather, the trial court’s final divorce decree controls.
See Dunn,
In the final divorce decree here, even as corrected, the trial court ordered Appellee to make spousal maintenance payments from June 1999 through December 2002, a period оf more than three years. The trial court only had authority to order maintenance for more than three years under section 8.054(b); therefore, we will interpret the decree as impliedly based on a finding of physical or mental disability under 8.054(b), since maintenance for any other rеason is limited to three years under 8.054(a).
See In re Brunin,
No. 04-04-00893-CV,
Thus, we hold that the trial court incorrectly treated Appellant’s motion for continuation of spousal maintenance as a motion under section 8.057 to modify the maintenance ordered by the original decree. And because the request for the trial court to review continuation of the spousal maintenance order placed no special burden of proof on Appellant other than to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her disability was continuing, the trial court erred in imposing on Appellant the burden to prove a material and substantial change in the circumstances of either party under section 8.057(c).
See
*282
Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 8.057(c); Act of May-22, 2001, 77th Leg., R.S., ch. 807, § 1, 2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 1574, 1576-77,
amended by
Act of May 25, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., ch. 914, § 3, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 3146, 3147;
Carlin,
V. Conclusion
Because we have sustained Appellant’s first issue, we need not address her seсond issue. We reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Notes
. The original final decree of divorce contained a clerical error by ordering spousal maintenance to continue through the last Friday in December оf 2003; therefore, on January 28, 2004, the court granted Appellee’s motion for judgment nunc pro tunc and corrected the decree such that the maintenance *278 payments continued only through the last Friday in December of 2002.
. Appellant’s motion to confirm spousal maintenance arrearage is not pertinent to any issue raised in this appeal; therefore, we need not discuss it.