Worford v. Stamper

Decision Date14 November 1990
Docket NumberNo. D-0002,D-0002
Citation801 S.W.2d 108
PartiesPatsy Stamper WORFORD, Petitioner, v. Willis G. STAMPER, Jr., Respondent.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

Robert N. Eames, Randolph W. Stout, Denton, for petitioner.

Elton M. Montgomery, Stanley H. Peavy, III, for respondent.


The issue in this case is whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining the amount of child support. Because we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals, 798 S.W.2d 573 and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Willis G. Stamper, Jr., and Patsy Stamper Worford were divorced in 1975. Under the original divorce decree, Stamper was ordered to pay $180 per month in child support until his son, Trey, reached the age of eighteen. Trey was five years old at the time of the divorce. Stamper was also ordered to pay one-half of any expenses incurred on behalf of Trey's medical disability and was required to maintain medical coverage for the benefit of Trey until the age of eighteen.

Worford filed a motion to modify the 1975 order in June 1986, requesting that the child support payments be increased and continued past the age of eighteen. It was undisputed by the parties that Trey would be unable to support himself after the age of eighteen due to various physical and mental handicaps. When Trey was fifteen years old, his developmental levels were between three and five years. His speech is unintelligible except to those closest to him and familiar with his responses. Trey also suffers from a dentofacial deformity which makes it difficult for him to chew his food and maintain proper hygiene.

Trey turned eighteen on January 9, 1988. The trial court entered a final modification order in July 1988, increasing Stamper's child support payments to $1350 per month and extending such payments beyond Trey's eighteenth birthday. Stamper was also ordered to maintain medical, dental, and hospitalization insurance for the benefit of his child and pay one-half of all medical, dental, orthodontic, and hospitalization expenses not covered by insurance. The court of appeals held that Patsy Stamper Worford showed a material and substantial change in circumstances, but reversed and remanded as to the amount of the order by summarily concluding:

[T]he trial court abused its discretion in rendering the new order because there is insufficient evidence to support the amount of payment required by the new order.

798 S.W.2d at 579.

In this case, no findings of fact or conclusions of law were requested or filed. It is therefore implied that the trial court made all the findings necessary to support its judgment. Lemons v. EMW Mfg. Co., 747 S.W.2d 372, 373 (Tex.1988); In re W.E.R., 669 S.W.2d 716, 717 (Tex.1984). In determining whether some evidence supports the judgment and the implied findings of fact, "it is proper to consider only that evidence most favorable to the issue and to disregard entirely that which is opposed to it or contradictory in its nature." Renfro Drug Co. v. Lewis, 149 Tex. 507, 513, 235 S.W.2d 609, 613 (1950). The judgment must be affirmed if it can be upheld on any legal theory that finds support in the evidence. In re W.E.R., 669 S.W.2d at 717.

A court's order of child support will not be disturbed on appeal unless the complaining party can show a clear abuse of discretion. Brito v. Brito, 346 S.W.2d 133, 134 (Tex.Civ.App.--El Paso 1961, writ ref'd n.r.e.). See, e.g., Sohocki v. Sohocki, 730 S.W.2d 30, 31 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1987, no writ); Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer, 535 S.W.2d 425, 427 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1976), aff'd on other grounds, 554 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.1977). The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court acted...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1310 cases
  • Shapolsky v Brewton
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • June 28, 2001
    ...findings, we view the trial court's judgment as impliedly finding all the facts necessary to support its judgment. Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex. 1990). Where a complete statement of facts appears in the record, however, these implied findings are not conclusive and an appell......
  • In re Lee
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • September 27, 2013
    ...to support its judgment.” (citing BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789, 795 (Tex.2002))); Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex.1990) (per curiam) (holding that findings of fact should be implied in favor of an order modifying child support (citing Lemons v. EMW Mfg.......
  • Corby v. McCarthy
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • December 30, 2003
    ...obligation continues pursuant to the guidelines if a child's infirmity is known before he reaches the age of majority); Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex.1990) (concluding that trial court did not err in utilizing child support guidelines for support of disabled adult child). But......
  • In Re: Jane Doe 2
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • March 7, 2000
    ...v. Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tex. 1982). 14. See In re W.E.R., 669 S.W.2d 716, 716 (Tex. 1984). 15. See Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex. 1990). 16. See, e.g., In re M.D.S., 1 S.W.3d 190, 200 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 1999, no pet.); In re R.D., 955 S.W.2d 364, 368 (Tex. App.--......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 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
    ...2015, no pet.).[292] Grotewold v. Meyer, 457 S.W.3d 531, 533 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.).[293] Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex. 1990); see also Ilff v. Ilff, 339 S.W.3d 74, 78 (Tex. 2011) (noting that this grant of discretion to the trial court is limited by T......

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