Clark v. Jamison

• Decision Date: 07 April 1994
• Docket Number: No. C14-93-00189-CV,C14-93-00189-CV
• Citation: 874 S.W.2d 312
• Parties: William Thomas CLARK, Appellant, v. Martha Hill JAMISON, Appellee. (14th Dist.)
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 312

874 S.W.2d 312

William Thomas CLARK, Appellant, v. Martha Hill JAMISON, Appellee.

No. C14-93-00189-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas,

Houston (14th Dist.).

April 7, 1994.

Samuel M. George, Houston, for appellant.

John F. Nichols, Houston, for appellee.

Before ROBERTSON, CANNON and DRAUGHN, JJ.

OPINION

DRAUGHN, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment denying a motion to modify a previous agreed order for child support. Appellant, William Thomas Clark, filed a Motion to Modify seeking to decrease his child support obligation owed to appellee, Martha Hill Jamison. The trial court denied the motion. In six points of error, appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the decrease in child support: (1) because the current amount was not in substantial compliance with the guidelines; (2) because the only evidentiary basis for continuing the present support order was the preferred lifestyle of appellee, not the proven needs of the children; and (3) by concluding as a matter of law that there was a material change in circumstances, but failing to consider the needs of the children. Appellant also complains that: (1) there was no evidence to support the trial court's finding that the needs of the children were at least $4,000 per month; (2) the trial court's finding that the monthly net resources of appellee is $2,787.83 is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence; and (3) the trial court's finding that it would not be in the best interest of the children to decrease the child support obligation was contrary to the law and the evidence. We affirm.

Appellant, William Thomas Clark, and appellee, Martha Hill Jamison, were divorced in late 1985. Appellee was appointed managing conservator of their two children, Matthew Thomas Clark and Meredith Virginia Clark, and appellant was appointed possessory conservator. The divorce decree set the original amount of child support and set out appellant's visitation rights.

On January 10, 1991, appellant and appellee entered into an Agreed Modification Order As To Conservatorship, Visitation, and Support, which was signed and rendered by the trial court on the same date. The agreed order required appellant to pay child support of $2,000 per month per child for a total of $4,000 per month. As additional child support, appellant agreed to pay the expenses for his children's private school and summer camp.

On November 20, 1991, appellant filed a Motion to Modify In Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship. The motion alleged that the circumstances of the children or a person affected by the prior agreed modification order had materially and substantially changed since the rendition of that order, and the support payments previously ordered should be decreased. The motion further stated that the support payments previously ordered were not in substantial compliance with the guidelines in section 14.055 of the Texas Family Code, and the requested decrease would be in the best interest of the children.

On August 11, 1992, the trial commenced on appellant's motion to modify. The trial court recessed on August 12, 1992, and reconvened the trial on November 23, 1992. At the completion of trial, the trial court took the motion under advisement. On December 30, 1992, the trial court signed an order denying the motion to modify and awarding appellee $15,000 in attorney's fees.

On January 19, 1993, appellant requested findings of fact and conclusions of law from the trial court. On February 23, 1993, the trial court filed the following Findings of Fact And Conclusions of Law regarding child support:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.1 William Thomas Clark agreed to the terms of the order entitled "Agreed Modification Order as to Conservatorship and Visitation and Support" signed and rendered by this Court on January 10, 1991.

1.2 William Thomas Clark's net income for calendar year 1990 exceeded $280,000.00.

1.3 William Thomas Clark's net income for calendar year 1991 exceeded $400,000.00.

1.4 Included in the amount of net income in 1992 of William Thomas Clark was a net attorneys fees of $1,766,400, after taxes, from the Vega v. Kerr McGee lawsuit.

1.5 The average amount of net cash resources available to William Thomas Clark per month exceeded $35,000.00 for 1991 and $147,000.00 per month for 1992.

1.6 The amount of child support payments per month that is computed if Section 14.055, Family Code, is applied to all of the net cash resources of William Thomas Clark is in excess of $36,800.00.

1.8 The children's needs have not been substantially reduced since January 10, 1991.

1.9 Martha Hill Jamison's expenditures have not been substantially reduced since January 10, 1991.

1.10 William Thomas Clark's income has not been substantially reduced since January 10, 1991.

1.11 The percentage allocations of the shared expenses of the children and Martha Hill Jamison's monthly necessary expense schedule are the same percentages used by William Thomas Clark in the prior modification proceeding which resulted in the "Agreed Modification Order as to Conservatorship and Visitation and Support" signed and rendered by this Court on January 10, 1991.

1.12 The specific reasons that the amount of support per month ordered by the court varies from the amount computed by applying the percentage guidelines pursuant to Section 14.055, Family Code, are:

a. William Thomas Clark has sufficient net disposable resources with which to pay the court ordered support;

b. the amount of child support ordered is an amount less than that required to meet the monthly expense needs of the children;

c. William Thomas Clark's financial resources greatly exceed that of Martha Hill Jamison;

d. William Thomas Clark agreed to the amount of the child support ordered in the January 10, 1991 modification order.

1.13 The needs of the children the subject of this suit at the time of trial were at least $4,000.00 per month, exclusive of the following:

a. tuition for the children at St. John's School, which the children attend; and,

b. summer camp expenses for the children.

1.14 William Thomas Clark voluntarily purchased a boat for approximately $45,000.00 cash, or cash equivalent, in June or July, 1991.

1.15 William Thomas Clark loaned his pilot, for purchase of an airplane for approximately $230,000.00 cash, or cash equivalent, on or about May 1, 1992.

1.16 William Thomas Clark loaned approximately $50,500.00 to his secretary, Pat Perry, for the purchase of a house, after the "Agreed Modification Order as to Conservatorship and Visitation and Support" was signed and rendered by this Court on January 10, 1991.

1.17 William Thomas Clark loaned money in the approximate amount of $60,000 cash, or cash equivalent, for the purchase of a house for his sister, Jenny Clark, in 1990.

1.18 William Thomas Clark received $70,000.00 in cash on the Cumberland note since January 10, 1991.

1.19 At the date of trial in this matter, William Thomas Clark owned 19 municipal bonds with a cumulative face value of $576,806.00.

1.20 As of the date of trial, William Thomas Clark's loan at First City Bank--Tyler was over-collateralized by $100,000.00 of his bonds.

1.21 At the date of trial in this matter, William Thomas Clark had a balance of at least $131,815.00 in his account in the Bill Clark Profit Sharing Plan.

1.22 As of November 20, 1992, William Thomas Clark was in arrearage in the payment of child support to Martha Hill Jamison in the amount of $29,501.58, under the terms of the child support order sought to be modified by him.

1.23 As of December 31, 1991, William Thomas Clark owned net assets in excess of $1,300,000.00.

1.24 As of March 21, 1992, William Thomas Clark owned net assets in excess of $3,400,000.00.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1.1 The circumstances of the children or a person affected by the agreed order providing for support of the children have materially and substantially changed since the rendition of the agreed order sought to be modified by William Thomas Clark but such change does not warrant a decrease in the child support obligation of William Thomas Clark under the existing child support order.

1.2 It would not be in the best [interest] of the children to decrease the child support obligations of William Thomas Clark presently existing under the "Agreed Modification Order as to Conservatorship and Visitation and Support" signed and rendered by this Court on January 10, 1991.

We note that appellant only challenges findings number 1.6 and 1.13. The remaining findings have not been challenged on appeal, so we are bound by those findings. See TEX.R.CIV.P. 299; Baccus v. Baccus, 808 S.W.2d 694, 699 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1991, no writ).

In his first point of error, appellant asserts that there is no evidence to support the trial court's finding number 1.13 that the needs of the children were at least $4,000 per month. When reviewing a no evidence point, we must consider only the evidence and inferences that support the trial court's finding and disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. Lewelling v. Lewelling, 796 S.W.2d 164, 166 (Tex.1990). If there is more than a scintilla of evidence to support the finding, the no evidence point must fail. Stafford v. Stafford, 726 S.W.2d 14, 16 (Tex.1987).

At trial, appellee presented Respondent's Exhibit No. 31, the Monthly Expenses of Martha Jamison and Family, which was admitted into evidence without objection. The monthly expense statement showed that the monthly expenses for appellee and the family at that time came to $28,749.01, and $15,320.58 was attributable to the children. The total did not allocate any expenses for parking, banks, charity, health insurance, and doctors to the children. Appellee testified that she had prepared the monthly expense sheet, and the items included were taken from her personal checks. Appellee also testified that the percentage allocations for the monthly expenses were the...