Wetzel v. Wetzel
| Decision Date | 24 September 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 15335,15335 |
| Citation | 514 S.W.2d 283 |
| Parties | Wilbur O. WETZEL, Jr., Appellant, v. Margie Jane McCabe WETZEL, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Charles F. Guenther, III, San Antonio, for appellant.
Kampmann, Church, Burns & Brenan, San Antonio, for appellee.
This is a divorce case under the Texas Family Code. The trial court, without a jury, granted appellee Margie Jane Wetzel a divorce from appellant Wilbur Wetzel; appointed her managing conservator of the one minor child; ordered appellant to pay $150.00 per month support for such minor child until the child reaches the age of 18 years; and made a division of the real and personal property of the parties. Appellant brings this appeal without a statement of facts; however, findings of fact and conclusions of law were made by the trial court.
Appellant makes no complaint as to the granting of the divorce or the award of child custody, but complains only that the trial court erred and abused its discretion (a) in ordering that he make child support payments of $150.00 per month, and (b) in making the division of the community property.
Without a statement of facts, appellant is in a poor position to support his contention that the trial court abused its discretion. There is no evidence before us from which we can ascertain if there is an abuse of discretion. Mercer v. Mercer, 503 S.W.2d 395 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1973, no writ); Elliott v. Elliott, 422 S.W.2d 757 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1967, writ dism'd).
Nevertheless, we will consider appellant's point of error that the trial court erred and abused its discretion in ordering appellant to pay $150,00 per month for the support of the minor child. In its findings of fact, the trial court found: that Wilbur Wetzel is physically and mentally capable of holding gainful employment but has not worked for ten months; that Wilbur receives income in excess of $500.00 per month from his oil property and rental property; that Margie is a school teacher and when she works in summer school, she earns in excess of $10,000.00 per year; that based on the financial circumstances of both parties, $150.00 per month is a reasonable amount to be contributed by Wilbur for the minor child's support and maintenance; that based on Wilbur's good mental and physical health, educational background, employment potential, and income from rents, Wilbur is able to pay and should pay $150.00 per month to support such minor child.
The main thrust of appellant's contention in this regard is that the court based its award on potential income, and that no court should be allowed to award child support in contemplation of potential income. 1 The court's findings do not support appellant's contention that such award was made solely on the basis of his earning ability. While the court May have considered appellant's employment potential, and we think it properly could, the court made a finding that appellant receives in excess of $500.00 per month from his oil and rental property. In the absence of a statement of facts, we must presume that such finding of the court is sufficiently supported by the evidence, and this finding alone would justify such award. Under the record before us, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in fixing the amount of child support to be paid by appellant at $150.00 per month.
We next consider appellant's contention that the trial court erred and abused its discretion in making the division of community property. Section 3.63 of the Texas Family Code, V.T.C.A., provides that, in a decree of divorce, the court shall order a division of the estate of the parties in a manner that the court deems just and right, having due regard for the rights of each party and any children of the marriage. The provisions of Section 3.63 do not require the property division to be equal, and the trial court may divide the property, separate and community, in such a manner that may seem just, right and proper to the court. Hensley v. Hensley, 496 S.W.2d 929 (Tex.Civ.App.--El Paso 1973, no writ); In re Marriage of McCurdy, 489 S.W.2d 712 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1973, writ dism'd); Dobbs v. Dobbs, 449...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garza v. Garza
...v. Bell, 513 S.W.2d 20, 22 (Tex.1974); Campbell v. Campbell, 554 S.W.2d 10, 11-12 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1977, no writ); Wetzel v. Wetzel, 514 S.W.2d 283, 285 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1974, no The specific and principle issue of the case at bar concerns the option, granted by the court......
-
Cordell v. Cordell
...561 S.W.2d 236 (Tex.Civ.App. Tyler 1978, no writ); Nixon v. Nixon, 540 S.W.2d 740 (Tex.Civ.App. Texarkana 1976, no writ); Wetzel v. Wetzel, 514 S.W.2d 283 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1974, no writ); Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer, 535 S.W.2d 425 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1976), Affirmed, 554 S.W.2d 137 (T......
-
Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer
...measure to his financial ability, Madden v. Madden, 365 S.W .2d 427 (Tex.Civ.App.1963, no writ), and his earning potential. Wetzel v. Wetzel, 514 S.W.2d 283 (Tex.Civ.App.1974, no Since August, 1973, when the suit was filed, appellant has contributed little or nothing to the support of his c......
-
Marriage of Miller, Matter of, 9122
...a father to support his children after divorce corresponds in large measure to his financial ability and earning potential. Wetzel v. Wetzel, 514 S.W.2d 283, 284-85 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1974, no writ); Madden v. Madden, 365 S.W.2d 427, 429 (Tex.Civ.App. Fort Worth 1963, no The trial co......