Tenery v. Tenery

Decision Date28 June 1996
Docket NumberNo. 96-0216,96-0216
Parties39 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 877 Wilbur Lane TENERY, Petitioner, v. Gloria TENERY, Respondent.
CourtTexas Supreme Court
OPINION

PER CURIAM.

In this divorce case, the trial court refused three requests to make findings of fact and conclusions of law about the division of a marital estate and the amount of child support. The court of appeals held that the trial court's refusal was not harmful error. --- S.W.2d ----, ----, 1995 WL 714203. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

The trial court awarded Gloria Tenery a disproportionate amount of the marital estate. It also ordered her husband, Wilbur, to pay $550 per month in child support for the care of one minor child. At the time of trial, Wilbur was collecting $980 per month in unemployment benefits. After the trial, Wilbur filed a timely request for findings of fact and conclusions of law under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 296. 1 Wilbur later submitted a notice of past due findings and conclusions and requested additional or amended findings and conclusions. See TEX.R.CIV.P. 297-98.

The court of appeals correctly held that Wilbur was not harmed by the trial court's failure to make findings of fact and conclusions of law about the division of the marital estate because there was ample evidence in the record to support the judgment. --- S.W.2d at ----. The trial court has wide latitude to divide the marital estate "in a manner that the court deems just and right." TEX.FAM.CODE § 3.63; see also Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696, 699 (Tex.1981). Here, the record contains evidence that Wilbur had more earning capacity than Gloria, that he was at fault for the breakup of the marriage, and that Gloria would have been the one to benefit financially if the marriage continued. This evidence supports the trial court's decision to award Gloria a disproportionate amount of the marital estate. A trial court's failure to make findings is not harmful error if "the record before the appellate court affirmatively shows that the complaining party suffered no injury." Cherne Indus. v. Magallanes, 763 S.W.2d 768, 772 (Tex.1989).

The court of appeals erred, however, when it held that Wilbur was not harmed by the trial court's failure to make findings of fact and conclusions of law about the amount of child support payments. --- S.W.2d at ----. The Family Code guides the calculation of child support and bases that calculation on a percentage of monthly resources. See TEX.FAM.CODE § 154.125. Under the Family Code, resources include wage and salary income, interest income, self-employment income, net rental income, and all other income actually being received. Id. § 154.062(b). If the trial court uses factors other than net resources in determining the amount of child support, the Family Code specifies the findings the trial court must make. Id. § 154.130.

The record reveals that at the time of trial Wilbur's net resources were limited to $980 per month. Section 154.125 would require Wilbur, who was supporting one minor child, to pay $196 per month. The trial court ordered Wilbur to pay Gloria $550 per month. In his request for additional or amended findings, Wilbur asked for findings explaining why the amount of child support per month ordered by the court varied from the amount computed under section 154.125 guidelines. The trial court has the discretion to deviate from the guidelines and consider other factors. Id. § 154.123. But if a trial court deviates, as it did here, it must, upon request, make written findings of fact and conclusions of law. Id. §...

To continue reading

Request your trial
211 cases
  • Limbaugh v. Limbaugh
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • February 6, 2002
    ...appeal from a bench trial. See Morris, 12 S.W.3d at 886; Roberts, 999 S.W.2d at 435; Joseph, 731 S.W.2d at 598; see also Tenery v. Tenery, 932 S.W.2d 29, 30 (Tex.1996) (requiring findings under section 154.130 of Family Code when child support award varied from statutory guidelines); Rothwe......
  • Cantu v. Comm'n for Lawyer Discipline
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • December 3, 2020
    ...failure is presumed harmful unless the record affirmatively shows the complaining party suffered no injury. See Tenery v. Tenery, 932 S.W.2d 29, 30 (Tex.1996) (per curiam); Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Magallanes, 763 S.W.2d 768, 772 (Tex. 1989). Error is harmful if it "probably prevented the app......
  • Beard v. Beard
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • April 18, 2001
    ...reversal if "the record before the appellate court affirmatively shows that the complaining party suffered no injury."7 Tenery v. Tenery, 932 S.W.2d 29, 30 (Tex. 1996) (quoting Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Magallanes, 763 S.W.2d 768, 772 (Tex. 1989)). An appellant has suffered injury from such re......
  • Livingston v. Livingston
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • September 21, 2017
    ...fact and conclusions, it is presumed harmful unless the record affirmatively shows the appellant suffered no harm. See Tenery v. Tenery , 932 S.W.2d 29, 30 (Tex. 1996) ; Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Magallanes , 763 S.W.2d 768, 772 (Tex. 1989). Here, the trial court's reasons for rendering the pe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • CHAPTER 2 Standards of Review and Scope of Review
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Practitioner's Guide to Civil Appeals in Texas
    • Invalid date
    ...pet. denied).[414] Tex. R. Civ. P. 296, 297; Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Magallanes, 763 S.W.2d 768, 772 (Tex. 1989).[415] Tenery v. Tenery, 932 S.W.2d 29, 30 (Tex. 1996) (quoting Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Magallanes, 763 S.W.2d 768, 772 (Tex. 1989)).[416] Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. v. Laca, 243 S.W.3d......
  • CHAPTER 3 Reversible Error
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Practitioner's Guide to Civil Appeals in Texas
    • Invalid date
    ...See Tex. R. App. P. 44.1(a)(1).[62] See Tex. R. App. P. 44.1(a)(1).[63] See Tex. R. App. P. 44.1(a)(1).[64] Tenery v. Tenery, 932 S.W.2d 29, 30 (Tex. 1996).[65] Tex. R. App. P. 44.1(a)(2); Tenery v. Tenery, 932 S.W.2d 29, 30 (Tex. See Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Reese, 584 S.W.2d 835, 839 (Te......

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