Holt v. Holt
| Citation | 620 S.W.2d 650 |
| Decision Date | 29 April 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 20692,20692 |
| Parties | G. R. HOLT, Appellant, v. Wanda P. HOLT, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas |
Charles E. Miller, Jr., Mesquite, for appellant.
Tom S. McCorkle, McCorkle, Westerburg & Felton, Dallas, for appellee.
Before ROBERTSON, STOREY and STEPHENS, JJ.
This is an appeal from the trial court's order increasing monthly child support payments from $125 to $300 on the basis of the increased financial ability of appellant G. R. Holt to pay. Appellant contends that, as a matter of law, his increased financial ability will not, without more, support an order increasing the amount of child support payments under Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 14.08(c)(2). We do not agree and affirm.
On October 15, 1976, appellant G. R. Holt and appellee Wanda P. Holt were divorced. Appellant was ordered to pay child support for the parties' minor child in the amount of $125 per month. On April 30, 1980, appellee filed a motion to increase the amount of child support. After a hearing, the court ordered an increase in child support to $300 per month. The evidence showed that appellant's income had increased from approximately $13,000 per year at the time of the divorce to approximately $24,000 for 1980, and that appellee's income for 1980 was substantially the same as it had been at the time of the divorce. The evidence failed to show what the needs of the child were at the time of the divorce and at the time of the hearing in 1980. The question is whether pleading and proof of the increased income of appellant is sufficient to support an order increasing child support absent proof of a material and substantial change in circumstances with respect to any other party affected by the order.
For an answer to this question, we look to the relevant statute, section 14.08(c)(2) of the Texas Family Code (Vernon Supp.1980) which provides in pertinent part:
(c) After a hearing, the court may modify an order or portion of a decree that:
. . . .
(2) provides for the support of a child, ... if the circumstances of the child or a person affected by the order or portion of the decree to be modified have materially and substantially changed since the entry of the order or decree; ....
The primary circumstances to be considered in determining the amount of child support are the ability of the parent or parents, in this case the father, to pay, and the needs of the child. Cozby v. Cozby, 597 S.W.2d 808 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1980, no writ). Our question, then, is whether a material and substantial change in both circumstances, the ability of the parent to contribute and the needs of the child, must be shown, or whether a material and substantial change in only one of the circumstances, the ability of the parent to contribute, is sufficient to justify modifying an order providing for the support of a child. We hold that a material and substantial change in only one circumstance, the ability of the parent to contribute, is sufficient to justify modifying an order providing for the support of a child.
In this connection, we note that we have been cited no case, and have not found one, holding that a material and substantial change in the financial ability of the parent is not sufficient to justify modifying an order providing for support of a child. Conversely, appellee has cited the case of Carter v. Hall, 589 S.W.2d 502 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1979, writ dism'd) in which the court held that a material and substantial change in the parent's financial ability to contribute to the support of the child was sufficient to justify an increase in the amount of support she was required to pay, even in the absence of a change in the needs of the child. Likewise, it has been held that a material and substantial change in the needs of the child justifies an order increasing the amount of child support, even in the absence of a showing of increased financial ability of the parent obligated to pay. Willis v. Willis, 425 S.W.2d 696 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston (1st...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bailey v. Bailey
...1996, writ denied), but also the needs of the child. Smith v. Smith, 651 S.W.2d 953, 955 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1983, no writ); Holt v. Holt, 620 S.W.2d 650, 651 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1981, no writ); TEX. FAM.CODE ANN. § 154.123(b)(1), (9) & (17) (Vernon 1996). Given that the payments are fo......
-
Baucom v. Crews
...the circumstances of the child or the managing conservator have also materially and substantially changed is not necessary. See Holt v. Holt, 620 S.W.2d 650, 652 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas, 1981, no writ). Point of error seven is Baucom complains in points eight and nine that there was no eviden......
-
Farley v. Farley
...need for necessities since entry of the original order or by evidence of the obligor's increased financial ability to pay, see Holt v. Holt, 620 S.W.2d 650, 651 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1981, no writ); Strauss v. Strauss, 619 S.W.2d 18, 19 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1981, no writ), Constanc......
-
In re K.F.
...writ) (affirming material and substantial change occurred when evidence showed father's income "had increased twofold"); Holt v. Holt, 620 S.W.2d 650, 652 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1981, no writ) (affirming trial court's order modifying child support because "appellee met her burden of showing......