In re Interest of A.A.T.

Decision Date28 August 2019
Docket NumberNo. 08-17-00130-CV,08-17-00130-CV
Citation583 S.W.3d 914
Parties In the INTEREST OF A.A.T., a Minor Child
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: Justo Fernandez-Gonzalez, Attorney at Law, 8811 Mercury, El Paso, TX 79904.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: Cynthia Ann Rodriguez, 9177 Lacerbark Elm, El Paso, TX 79907.

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.

OPINION

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Andres Tellez and Cynthia Rodriguez are the parents of A.A.T., a minor child. Tellez filed a motion to modify a prior child support order, arguing that his circumstances had materially and substantially changed due to a disability he suffered since the rendition of the prior order. The trial court denied his motion and awarded attorney's fees in favor of Rodriguez. On appeal, Rodriguez contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion and in awarding attorney's fees to Rodriguez.1 Because we agree that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion, we reverse and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On February 9, 2006, the trial court entered an agreed order in a suit affecting the parent child relationship (SAPCR), setting Tellez's monthly child support obligation for A.A.T. at $128.00, and his monthly medical support obligation at $25.00.2 Subsequently, on August 11, 2012, the trial court entered an agreed order enforcing and modifying Tellez's support obligation, finding that Tellez was in arrears in both his child support and medical support obligations. The trial court ordered Tellez to make payments on the arrearages, and modified the amount of child support that Tellez was obligated to pay.3 In that order, the trial court expressly found that Tellez's gross monthly resources were $1,516.66, and that his net monthly resources were $1,303.56. As Tellez had one other minor child at the time for whom he had a duty of support, the trial court set Tellez's child support obligation at 17.50% of his net resources in accordance with the statutory guidelines, and ordered him to pay child support of $228.00 a month, and medical support of $57.00 a month. See TEX.FAM.CODE ANN. § 154.129 (setting forth statutory guidelines in multi-family cases).

As discussed in more detail below, shortly thereafter, on August 24, 2012, Tellez suffered a stroke, and the Social Security Administration later determined that Tellez was disabled and unable to work, at which time he began receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. On November 1, 2013, Tellez filed a motion to modify the prior child support order, contending that his circumstances had materially and substantially changed since the rendition date of that order. Rodriguez filed an answer to the motion, generally denying Tellez's allegations.

On October 1, 2014, an associate judge found that material and substantial changes existed, and recommended modifying the prior child support order to reduce Tellez's child support obligation to zero. In an order dated October 31, 2014, the trial court adopted the associate judge's recommendation, reducing his child support obligations to zero finding that Tellez's allegations were true and that the requested modification was in the best interest of the child.4

On November 21, 2014, Rodriguez filed a motion for new trial, asserting that the trial court abused its discretion in reducing Tellez's support obligations to zero, and that she had "newly discovered evidence" to support her motion. The newly discovered evidence, which Rodriguez attached to her motion, was a statement from the Social Security Administration, indicating that Tellez was receiving SSI benefits of $480.67 a month due to a disability, but that the program from which he was receiving benefits would not allow his dependent minor children to receive any benefits. Following a hearing in front of an associate judge, Rodriguez's motion for new trial was denied, but Rodriguez thereafter filed a request for a "de novo hearing."5 In her request, Rodriguez acknowledged that Tellez was receiving SSI benefits, she alleged that Tellez was "able to work," and that he "had been seen working." On February 12, 2015, the trial court issued an order granting Rodriguez's motion for new trial, and set a hearing on Tellez's motion to modify.

The Hearing

After several resets, the trial court held the hearing on Tellez's motion on February 24, 2017, at which time the subject child was 13 years old. At the hearing, Tellez testified that when the prior child support order was entered on August 11, 2012, he was working for his family's business, Tellez Motors, where he had worked for 20 years since age 18. Tellez testified, however, that almost two weeks later, on August 24, 2012, he had a stroke

which resulted in internal bleeding in his brain and memory loss, leaving him disabled and unable to work or drive.6 Although Tellez did not provide any medical records, he testified that he was hospitalized after the stroke

, was still under a doctor's treatment at the time of the hearing, and was taking medication as the result of his stroke to prevent seizures.7

Tellez testified that because of his stroke, he had not worked at Tellez Motors or elsewhere since August of 2012, and that his only source of income came from his SSI benefits, which at the time of the hearing were set at $490.00 a month.8 At the hearing, Tellez submitted two letters from the Social Security Administration, dated November 30, 2014 and November 27, 2016, to establish that he was receiving SSI benefits.9 Tellez expressed his understanding that he would continue to receive SSI benefits until such time as he was able to return to work, and that as of the hearing date, the Social Security Administration had not made a finding that he was able to work. Tellez also testified that he had no other financial resources and no means to generate any income.

Although Rodriguez did not dispute that Tellez had suffered a stroke or that he was receiving SSI benefits, she expressed her belief that he was still working for his father at Tellez Motors, testifying that she observed him showing a vehicle to a customer in October of 2014, over two years prior to the hearing, and that some of her "friends and neighbors" had also seen him working at the business on unspecified occasions. Rodriguez also testified that Tellez informed her that after his stroke, he still worked at his family's business "every now and then to help out his dad." In addition, Rodriguez testified that in August of 2013, she had seen a Tellez Motors' banner with Tellez's name on it, which the Tellez family was using to advertise the business at an annual event held by her church. Although Rodriguez testified that she had photographs of the banner from the August 2013 event, she did not bring them with her to court, and she acknowledged that she had not seen the banner since the 2013 event.

At the hearing, Rodriguez admitted that she had no documentary proof that Tellez was working at his family business, and had no proof that he had any income other than his SSI checks. However, she expressed her belief that his family might be paying him in cash for his work, as she had witnessed them do so in the past, when she and Appellant were living together prior to their separation several years ago.

Following the hearing, the trial court entered an order dated March 14, 2017, denying Tellez's motion to modify child support and granting Rodriguez's request for attorney's fees, awarding attorney's fees of $1,000.00 to Rodriguez. Tellez thereafter filed a motion for new trial which was overruled by operation of law.10 This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

Tellez challenges the trial court's order in two issues. In his first issue, he contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for modification because the undisputed evidence demonstrated the existence of a material and substantial change in his financial circumstances warranting the requested modification. In his second issue, he contends that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to Rodriguez.

Issue One: The Order Denying the Motion for Modification
Applicable Law and Standard of Review

A court may modify a prior child support order if the circumstances of the child or a person affected by the order have materially and substantially changed since the order was rendered. TEX.FAM.CODE ANN. §§ 156.401(a)(1)(A), (a)(2). The person seeking a modification of child support has the burden of establishing a material and substantial change. In re J.A.H. , 311 S.W.3d 536, 541 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2009, no pet.), citing Lindsey v. Lindsey , 965 S.W.2d 589, 593 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1998, no pet.) ; see also Hodson v. Keiser , 81 S.W.3d 363, 368 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2002, no pet.). The court retains broad discretion in making the equitable decision of whether to modify a prior support order. Id. ; see also Hodson v. Keiser , 81 S.W.3d 363, 368 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2002, no pet.). An order regarding child support will not be disturbed on appeal unless the complaining party can demonstrate a clear abuse of discretion. In re J.A.H. , 311 S.W.3d at 540, citing Worford v. Stamper , 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex. 1990).

In determining whether an abuse of discretion occurred, we engage in a two-pronged inquiry: "(1) Did the trial court have sufficient information upon which to exercise its discretion, and (2) did the trial court err in its application of discretion?" In re J.A.H. , 311 S.W. 3d at 540, citing Lindsey , 965 S.W.2d at 592. The operative inquiry in the first question is the sufficiency of the evidence. In Interest of C. M. V. , 479 S.W.3d 352, 358 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2015, no pet.), citing In re T.M.P. , 417 S.W.3d 557, 562 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2013, no pet.). Once we have determined whether sufficient evidence exists, we must then decide whether the trial court made a reasonable decision, or conversely, whether the ruling was arbitrary...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • M.G. v. T.G.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • February 23, 2023
    ...583 S.W.3d 914, 924 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2019, no pet.); and (2) Section 154.066 requires proof of the obligor's current earnings, A.A.T., 583 S.W.3d at 924 (explaining under Section 154.066, obligor must first provide proof of current earnings and then obligee has burden to prove obligor is ......
  • In re Interest of K.M.B.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • July 20, 2020
  • In re Marriage of Contreras
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • December 29, 2022
    ...conclude that the trial court could have impliedly found that Vita was eligible for spousal maintenance under § 8.051(2)(C). See In re A.A.T., 583 S.W.3d at 921. divorce decree ordered German to provide support for his disabled child. As previously mentioned in our discussion of German's se......
  • In re K.F.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • December 2, 2021
    ...ruling," the burden was on Mother to offer evidence to support her request for the modification of child support. See In re A.A.T., 583 S.W.3d 914, 920 (Tex. App-El Paso 2019, no pet). From this record, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Mother's motion to m......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT