The Texas Family Code sets out the circumstances under which Texas spousal maintenance may be ordered. The court may order maintenance to a spouse only if they will lack sufficient property after the divorce to provide for their minimum reasonable needs. The spouse must also meet one of three conditions, either: (A) being unable to earn sufficient income to meet their minimum reasonable needs because of an incapacitating disability; (B) having been married for at least 10 years and lacking the ability to earn sufficient income; or (C) being the custodian of a child of the marriage who has a disability and requires substantial care and supervision that prevents the spouse from earning sufficient income. Tex. Fam. Code § 8.051. It is generally within the court’s discretion to determine a spouse’s “minimum reasonable needs.”
The Texas Supreme Court recently considered the nature of evidence required to support a spousal maintenance award.
The wife stopped working outside the home to become their primary caregiver to the parties’ triplets. One of them was a “medically fragile child” who needed extensive medical treatment.
Trial Court
The husband filed for divorce in 2019. Temporary orders gave the wife exclusive use of the home and required her to pay the mortgage and taxes. The husband was also ordered to pay her $2,760 in monthly child support and temporary spousal support. The wife subsequently obtained employment with a nonprofit she cofounded with a salary of $30,000 that was guaranteed for a year.
At the trial, the husband testified the home needed repairs. He expressed concerns the wife could not pay for the mortgage or taxes with her salary. He said he had paid the mortgage twice, even thought it was the wife’s responsibility. He told a social worker she had not paid the bills. The wife said she could not pay the mortgage because the husband had not paid “spousal support,” was behind in child support, and had paid her share of federal funds.
The final divorce decree appointed both parents joint managing conservators with the wife having the exclusive right to designate the children’s primary residence. The court ordered the husband to pay $2,000 in monthly spousal maintenance for 36 months in addition to child support.
The trial court concluded the wife was eligible for spousal support “under the provisions of Texas Family Code chapter 8.” The husband sought additional findings or conclusions providing the legal basis for the court’s conclusions. He argued that there had not been any evidence to support this conclusion.
The court did not make any additional findings or conclusions, and the husband appealed.
Appeals Court
The appeals court reversed the spousal maintenance award, determining the wife had not presented legally sufficient evidence she did not have sufficient property to provide for her reasonable needs. The wife had presented evidence that her mortgage was about $2,032 per month with an additional $756 in taxes. The appeals court noted, however, that there was not evidence establishing any other monthly expenses. The court concluded the wife had “about $13,515 in liquid assets,” which it determined would result in about $375 per month. The court added this to the wife’s gross salary and child support and concluded she had about $5,635 in total monthly income, which was greater than the minimum reasonable needs she had established. The appeals court concluded there was legally insufficient evidence to support the implied finding she did not have sufficient property to meet her minimum reasonable needs.
Supreme Court
The wife petitioned the Texas Supreme Court for review.
The Texas Supreme Court concluded the appeals court erred by only considering “the incomplete quantitative evidence of [the wife’s] expenses” without considering other evidence she would not have sufficient property to meet her needs. Additionally, the court erred by considering the child support without also considering the children’s expenses that it would not cover. The Texas Supreme Court concluded the wife had presented sufficient evidence to support a conclusion she was eligible for spousal maintenance.
Child Support Payments
The appeals court considered the monthly child support payments as property available to meet the wife’s needs pursuant to Tex. Fam. Code § 8.051.
The wife argued child support should not be considered in determining a spouse’s eligibility for maintenance. The Court noted that under the Tex. Fam. Code, child support is “for the support of the child,” TEX. FAM. CODE § 154.001(b). Spousal maintenance, however, is intended to “provide temporary and rehabilitative support for a spouse. . . “ The Court also noted, however, that “families function as units.” Some expenses, such as housing, are combined. Therefore, the Court reasoned, part of child support is property providing for the spouse’s needs pursuant to Tex. Fam. Code § 8.051.
Child support does not necessarily cover all expenses related to the child, however. The recipient may also have to contribute financially for the child’s expenses. Those expenses reduce the income the spouse can put toward their own needs. The Court stated that where a spouse who receives child support also seeks maintenance, the court must consider both the child support and the children’s expenses. The court may include child support as part of the spouse’s income only if it also considers the child-related expenses.
Evidence of Expenses
In this case, the appeals court acknowledged that a list of expenses is not the only evidence of a spouse’s minimum reasonable needs, but also stated that the wife did not provide an itemized list of expenses. The husband testified the wife had missed mortgage payments and he was concerned she could not maintain the home. He also told a social worker she had not paid bills.
The Court acknowledged that it is “best practice” for a spouse to provide an itemized list of expenses and income, but noted that such lists are not required by the Texas Family Code. The court may instead consider testimony regarding the spouse’s inability to pay their basic expenses. The Court stated courts should not “require exacting numerical detail or disregard competent qualitative evidence.”
The appeals court concluded the wife was not eligible for maintenance under the first prong of the test, so it did not consider whether she was eligible under the second. The Texas Supreme Court, however, concluded there was sufficient evidence to show that she was qualified pursuant to Tex. Fam. Code § 8.051(2)(C) as custodian of a child with a disability.
The wife quit her job to take care of the children and became their primary caregiver. She made their medical decisions. The trial court found one child was “a medically fragile child” and he had nearly died multiple times. The wife needed to stay home to care for him due to his medical needs. The record showed that his treatments could take several hours. He also had daily medical needs and “personal-care needs throughout the day.” The Court concluded there was sufficient evidence to support a finding she was the custodian of a child who required substantial care and personal supervision because of a disability that prevented her from earning a sufficient income. Tex. Fam. Code § 8.051(2)(C).
Concluding there was legally sufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s conclusion the wife would lack sufficient property to provide for her needs and that she was the custodian of a child with a physical disability who required care and supervision that prevented her from earning sufficient income, the Court reversed the appeals court’s judgment in part and reinstated the part of the trial court’s decree that awarded the wife spousal maintenance.
Consult with an Attorney
If your marriage is ending and you anticipate spousal maintenance being an issue, a knowledgeable Dallas divorce lawyer can help you pursue a favorable outcome based on the facts of your case. Set up a consultation with McClure Law Group at 214.692.8200.