Memorandum Opinion by Justice Breedlove, 05-24-00962-CV, January 30, 2026.
On appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas.
Synopsis
The Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s refusal to terminate a child support obligation where the movant failed to produce mandatory financial disclosures, effectively precluding the court from assessing his true net resources. While the court upheld the denial of relief, it struck a $4,800 discovery sanction because the record lacked a sufficient evidentiary basis to justify the specific monetary award.
Relevance to Family Law
This opinion serves as a critical reminder that in modification proceedings, the burden of proof regarding a “material and substantial change” remains firmly on the movant, and that burden is nearly impossible to meet if the movant fails to provide transparency regarding their financial estate. For practitioners, the case underscores two strategic points: first, a directed verdict is an underutilized but effective tool when a petitioner fails to produce the financial data required by the Texas Family Code; and second, any request for discovery sanctions must be supported by a specific evidentiary nexus between the misconduct and the amount awarded to survive appellate scrutiny.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Husband and Wife were divorced in 2022, with Husband ordered to pay $1,298 per month in child support. Following the loss of his employment, Husband sought to terminate his child support obligation. At an initial temporary hearing, the trial court reduced his obligation to $319.46 based on his then-current unemployment benefits. However, prior to the final hearing, Wife served discovery requests seeking updated financial information. Husband failed to produce documents regarding his retirement accounts, investment accounts, and real property held in India.
At the final hearing, Husband admitted he had not provided the requested financial documents and did not bring them to court. He testified that he was no longer receiving unemployment benefits and was living on loans, yet he could not or would not substantiate the source of those funds or the status of his other assets. Wife moved for a directed verdict, arguing that Husband’s failure to disclose his financial situation prevented the court from determining his net resources. The trial court granted the directed verdict, denied the request for termination, and imposed a $4,800 sanction for discovery abuse.
Issues Decided
The Court of Appeals addressed four primary issues: (1) whether the trial court’s judgment was void; (2) whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the denial of the termination request; (3) whether the $4,800 discovery sanction was proper; and (4) whether the trial court exhibited bias.
Rules Applied
The court applied the abuse of discretion standard, which in family law cases incorporates traditional legal and factual sufficiency reviews. Under the Texas Family Code, a court may modify a child support order if the circumstances of the child or a person affected by the order have materially and substantially changed. Furthermore, the court looked to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure regarding discovery obligations and the requirements for a trial court to impose “just” sanctions that are supported by the evidence and maintain a nexus between the conduct and the penalty.
Application
The Dallas Court of Appeals found that Husband failed to meet his evidentiary burden. Because child support calculations are predicated on “net resources,” Husband’s refusal to disclose his investment accounts and foreign property interests created an evidentiary vacuum. The court reasoned that Husband’s testimony regarding his unemployment was not sufficient to mandate termination when his overall financial picture remained obscured by his own discovery defaults.
Regarding the sanctions, the court analyzed the $4,800 award under the TransAmerican standards. Although the record clearly established that Husband abused the discovery process by withholding documents, the court found no evidence in the record to support the specific amount of $4,800. Without testimony or exhibits linking that figure to attorney’s fees or costs incurred by the Wife due to the discovery abuse, the sanction could not stand.
Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to terminate child support. The court held that without comprehensive financial disclosures, the trial court acted within its discretion to conclude that Husband had not established a material and substantial change in his ability to provide support.
The Court of Appeals reversed the portion of the judgment awarding $4,800 in sanctions. The court held that even when discovery abuse is apparent, the trial court abuses its discretion by imposing a monetary sanction that lacks an evidentiary foundation in the record.
Practical Application
For litigators, this case highlights the “clean hands” reality of support modification. A party seeking downward modification who simultaneously stonewalls discovery on assets (even if they have lost their primary income) is highly susceptible to a directed verdict. Conversely, when representing the respondent, counsel should be diligent in moving for a directed verdict if the movant’s failure to comply with Rule 194 or specific requests prevents an accurate calculation of net resources.
Checklists
Defeating a Modification Request via Directed Verdict
- Identify Discovery Deficiencies: Confirm if the movant failed to produce bank statements, tax returns, or investment account data.
- Highlight the Net Resources Burden: Argue that under the Family Code, the court cannot determine the “material and substantial change” without seeing the full scope of the movant’s assets, not just their current salary.
- Move for Directed Verdict: At the close of the movant’s case-in-chief, argue that they have failed to provide a “scintilla of evidence” regarding their total net resources.
Preserving a Sanctions Award on Appeal
- Establish the Nexus: Explicitly link the discovery abuse to the specific harm (e.g., additional hours spent by counsel).
- Provide Evidentiary Support: Do not rely on the judge’s “inherent power” to pick a number. Put on testimony from the attorney regarding fees or present invoices as exhibits.
- Requested Relief: Ensure the record reflects that the sanction is the “least severe” necessary to achieve compliance and is not excessive in relation to the conduct.
Citation
In the Interest of D.J., a Child, No. 05-24-00962-CV (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 30, 2026, no pet. h.).
Full Opinion
~~724109bc-a66e-4e97-a0b9-9cf6c5701efd~~
Share this content: