Stocker v. Magera
| Decision Date | 27 February 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 9712,9712 |
| Citation | 807 S.W.2d 753 |
| Parties | De Ann STOCKER, Appellant, v. Eugene S. MAGERA, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Gary L. Waite, Paris, for appellant.
Christopher N. Hoover, Dallas, for appellee.
De Ann Stocker appeals from the trial court's order on her motion to modify child support. The issues concern whether the trial court committed errors to the extent that its action on the motion to modify amounted to an abuse of discretion. We find no abuse of discretion and affirm.
Stocker contends that the trial court's errors in its findings of fact caused it to abuse its discretion when setting child support. The trial court increased child support from $167.50 per month to $240.00 per month. 1 The trial court found that the amount of net resources available to Eugene Magera per month is $3,072.44, and that he received an additional automobile expense allowance of $180.00. 2 The trial court also found that the amount of net resources available to Stocker could not be determined under the evidence. Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 14.053(g) (Vernon Supp.1990) provides that the court shall require the parties to furnish sufficient information to enable it to accurately identify their net resources and abilities to provide child support. See Morris v. Morris, 757 S.W.2d 466, 467 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, writ denied). Inasmuch as this provision is mandatory, the trial court erred in failing to require that such information be furnished. However, because the trial court considered Stocker's earning potential as shown by her education and qualifications as a rationale for its decision, rather than her present income, the error was not calculated to cause the rendition of an improper judgment. Thus, reversal of the judgment because of this error is not warranted. Tex.R.App.P. 81(b)(1).
Stocker also maintains that the trial court abused its discretion in setting child support. Generally, the setting of child support by the trial court will be reversed on appeal only on a finding of a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court. Gillespie v. Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tex.1982); Rocha v. Villarreal, 766 S.W.2d 895, 898 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1989, no writ). The standard for determining whether a trial court has abused its discretion is whether the court acted without reference to any guiding rules and principles. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1159, 106 S.Ct. 2279, 90 L.Ed.2d 721 (1986); Levermann v. Cartall, 715 S.W.2d 728 (Tex.App.--Texarkana 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
The trial court found that the amount of net resources available to Magera is $3,072.44 per month and that the range of support per month under the guidelines is between $560.96 and $703.04. Utilizing the findings made in accordance with the rule, the trial court set child support at approximately eight percent of Magera's net income. In setting child support at an amount less than recommended by the guidelines, the trial court considered that the parties had entered into a contract for support which was not to be increased and for which Magera's estate was to be liable should he die. Further, Magera had contributed over $13,000.00 for support of his children in the two years before the hearing. Also significant to the trial court were these facts: Stocker has a Bachelor's Degree in history, a Master's Degree in architecture and design, and a Master's Degree in engineering technology. The trial court concluded that she could earn income equal to Magera's or perhaps more and is equally responsible for the support of the child subject to the modification order. Based upon these considerations, the trial court increased support to $240.00 per month, an amount it found to be about one half of the support under the guidelines.
After examining the reasons given by the trial court in declining to set child support payments within the suggested guidelines, we conclude that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Striegler, In Interest of
...of child support by a trial court should only be set aside on a finding of clear abuse of discretion. Stocker v. Magera, 807 S.W.2d 753, 754 (Tex.App.--Texarkana 1990, writ denied), citing Gillespie v. Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449 (Tex.1982). In deciding whether a trial court has abused its di......
-
Interest of Davis
...permit a court to consider the earning potential of a voluntarily unemployed or underemployed parent. Stocker v. Magera, 807 S.W.2d 753, 755 n.3 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1990, writ denied); Anderson v. Anderson, 767 S.W.2d 163, 165 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, no The trial court is acc......
-
In the Interest of Z.B.P.
...Worth 2000, no pet.); see also DuBois v. DuBois, 956 S.W.2d 607, 610 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1997, no pet.); Stocker v. Magera, 807 S.W.2d 753, 754 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1990, writ denied). The test for abuse of discretion is whether the court acted arbitrarily or unreasonably, that is, without ref......
-
In re Marriage of Grossnickle
...Worth 2000, no pet.); DuBois v. DuBois, 956 S.W.2d 607, 610 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1997, no pet.); Stocker v. Magera, 807 S.W.2d 753, 754 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1990, writ denied). The test for abuse of discretion is whether the court acted arbitrarily or unreasonably, that is, without reference to g......