X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Jeffrey London and Leticia London divorced in 1995 and were appointed joint managing conservators of their two children, Nicolas, born in 1992, and Alexa, born in 1994. Under the terms of the divorce decree, Jeff was ordered to pay child support, to provide and pay for health insurance for the children, to pay all uninsured medical expenses incurred by the children and to pay as additional child support towards tuition and education expenses of the children. In 2001, in response to the parties’ petitions to modify the parent-child relationship, the trial court increased Jeff’s child support obligation from $1,500 to $4,500 a month, awarded Leticia $40,000 in attorney’s fees, awarded Jeff the sole right to make the decisions regarding the children’s education and additional periods of possession, and restricted the children’s primary residence to Harris County. On review, the appellate court reversed and rendered judgment that Leticia take nothing on her claims for increased child support and attorney’s fees. Leticia then filed a second motion for modification in the trial court in which she sought an increase in the $1,500 in child support Jeff was ordered to pay under the divorce decree and attorney’s fees. Jeff filed a general denial and a counterclaim in which he sought recoupment of $86,250 from Leticia, the total amount of increased child support and retroactive child support payments he made to Leticia during the pendency of his appeal of the trial court’s 2001 judgment that increased his monthly child support obligation to $4,500 per month. The trial court granted Leticia’s second motion for increased child support, and awarded retroactive support and attorney fees. Jeff appealed the trial court’s award of increased child support and attorney’s fees in favor of Leticia and its denial of his claim for recoupment. HOLDING:Reversed and rendered. On appeal, Jeff argues that the trial court erred in not allowing him to recoup the $86,250 in child support he overpaid and in failing to make certain requested findings about the $86,250 when there was evidence to support them. The court notes that Texas Family Code ��109.001 and 109.002 allow a trial court or an appellate court to suspend the operation of an order or judgment that is being appealed, and finds nothing in the statute requiring Jeff to seek suspension of the order as a prerequisite to seeking recoupment of the $86,250 in child support he overpaid during the pendency of the previous appeal. The court finds that Jeff has asked the court to return that which is due to him � the sums he paid in compliance with a court order that this court subsequently overturned. Under common law principles of money had and received or restitution, the court determines that Jeff is entitled to recover these sums. Accordingly, the court reverses the trial court’s judgment and renders judgment for Jeff in the amount of $86,250. Jeff next challenges the trial court’s current order increasing his monthly child support obligation to $3,000. Jeff argues the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court’s findings of a material and substantial change in circumstances. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Leticia, the court finds that a comparison of the children’s 1995 needs and their current needs shows the children’s needs have not materially or substantially changed. The court reasons that in 1995, the children’s monthly proven needs were approximately $3,600 (two-thirds of $5,400, the total amount of Leticia’s and the children’s monthly needs). At the time of modification, the trial court found the children’s monthly needs were not more than $3,500 per month. The court concludes that Leticia has failed to present any evidence that the children’s needs have increased since the time of divorce. Thus, the court hold that the decrease in the expenses required to meet the needs of the children does not constitute a material and substantial change in circumstances warranting an increase in Jeff’s child support obligation. Consequently, the court rules that Leticia take nothing on her modification claim, and that Jeff recoup child support he overpaid during the pendency of this appeal. The court further remands the issue of attorneys fees to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. OPINION:Anderson, J.; Anderson, Hudson, and Frost, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.