Texas Appellate Court Reverses Child Support Award for Failure to Provide Mandatory Statutory Findings
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Triana, 03-24-00115-CV, January 29, 2026.
On appeal from the 353rd District Court of Travis County.
Synopsis
The Third Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s disproportionate division of a community estate predicated on a spouse’s breach of fiduciary duty and waste of community assets. However, the court reversed the child support award, holding that the trial court committed a per se abuse of discretion by deviating from the statutory child support guidelines without entering the mandatory written findings required by Texas Family Code Section 154.130.
Relevance to Family Law
This decision serves as a critical reminder for practitioners that Section 154.130 findings are not merely aspirational; they are a jurisdictional and procedural prerequisite to any deviation from guideline child support. Even where the record provides a substantive basis for deviation—such as significant travel expenses for visitation—the absence of the statutory “math” in the final decree or separate findings renders the order reversible. Furthermore, the opinion reinforces the appellate court’s deference to trial courts in property divisions where “self-help” spending and the depletion of joint accounts during the pendency of a divorce are evidenced, categorizing such actions as a breach of fiduciary duty that justifies a departure from a 50/50 split.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The litigation involved the dissolution of the marriage between Yuqian Gan and Arnoldus Mathijssen. Following their separation in 2022, Gan unilaterally depleted the parties’ joint checking accounts, which had previously held balances exceeding $33,000. Evidence presented at trial indicated that Gan transferred approximately $27,588 to her separate accounts, paid $8,621 to her mother for childcare services, and utilized $16,975 of community funds to pay off her personal credit cards. Mathijssen, a professor in Philadelphia, testified to the significant costs associated with exercising his visitation in Texas, citing monthly travel expenses of approximately $1,000.
During the trial, the court expressed concern over Gan’s “excessive post-separation spending” and found that she had violated her fiduciary duties to Mathijssen. The final decree awarded Mathijssen a disproportionate share of the community estate. Regarding child support, the court deviated from the guideline amount previously established in temporary orders and a Partial Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA), presumably to account for Mathijssen’s travel costs. However, the trial court failed to include the specific net resource calculations or the reasons for deviation as required by the Family Code.
Issues Decided
- Did the trial court abuse its discretion by deviating from the Texas child support guidelines without making the mandatory written findings required by Tex. Fam. Code § 154.130?
- Did the trial court abuse its discretion in dividing the community estate disproportionately based on Gan’s breach of fiduciary duty and waste of community assets?
Rules Applied
The court primarily relied upon Texas Family Code § 154.130, which mandates that if a court deviates from the statutory guidelines, it shall make specific findings, including the net resources of the obligor and obligee, the percentage applied to the obligor’s net resources, and the specific reasons why the amount ordered varies from the guidelines.
Regarding property division, the court applied Texas Family Code § 7.001, which requires a “just and right” division. The court also looked to the common law principles of breach of fiduciary duty and waste, noting that while a “waste” claim is not an independent cause of action in a divorce, it is a factor the court may consider in achieving a just and right division of the estate.
Application
In addressing the child support issue, the Court of Appeals noted that the trial court explicitly stated its intent to consider Mathijssen’s travel costs when setting the support amount. However, the intent was insufficient to overcome the statutory mandate. Because the final decree lacked the specific “fill-in-the-blank” findings required by Section 154.130—specifically the net resources of both parties and the justification for the variance—the trial court’s order was legally deficient. The appellate court emphasized that when these findings are requested or when the court deviates on its own motion, the duty to provide them is mandatory.
In contrast, the court found no error in the property division. The record was replete with evidence that Gan had engaged in “financial self-help” by emptying joint accounts and paying her mother significant sums without Mathijssen’s consent. The court reasoned that a spouse’s use of community funds for their own benefit or for a purpose unrelated to the marriage constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty. Given that the trial court found Gan’s spending to be excessive and a violation of her duties, the disproportionate award to Mathijssen was well within the trial court’s broad discretion to ensure a just and right division.
Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s division of the community estate. It held that the evidence of Gan’s post-separation spending and the depletion of joint accounts supported the trial court’s finding of a breach of fiduciary duty, which justified a disproportionate property division in favor of Mathijssen.
The Court of Appeals reversed the portion of the decree relating to child support and rendered judgment for guideline support. It held that the trial court’s failure to provide the mandatory written findings required by Texas Family Code Section 154.130 constituted a reversible abuse of discretion, as the statutory requirements are non-discretionary when the court chooses to deviate from the guidelines.
Practical Application
For the family law practitioner, this case emphasizes that “good reasons” for a deviation are not a substitute for “statutory findings.” When representing a party who stands to benefit from a deviation (such as an obligor with high travel expenses), counsel must ensure the final decree contains the specific language required by Section 154.130. Relying on the trial court to “remember” these findings is a recipe for an avoidable reversal. Conversely, for the party opposing a deviation, the absence of these findings provides a clear, high-probability avenue for appeal. Regarding property division, this case provides a roadmap for using post-separation bank statements to establish a breach of fiduciary duty, effectively turning “reimbursement” or “waste” arguments into a “just and right” disproportionate award.
Checklists
Securing a Support Deviation (Section 154.130 Compliance)
- Ensure the decree explicitly states the net resources of the obligor.
- Ensure the decree explicitly states the net resources of the obligee.
- Include the specific percentage that would have been applied under the guidelines.
- Draft a narrative section within the findings detailing why the guideline amount is “unjust or inappropriate” under the specific facts (e.g., travel costs, special needs).
- Request formal Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law if the decree itself is sparse on these details.
Prosecuting a Waste/Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim
- Trace all post-separation transfers from joint accounts to separate accounts.
- Identify payments to third parties (e.g., family members) that lack a legitimate community purpose.
- Compare pre-separation spending patterns with post-separation “spike” spending.
- Categorize attorney’s fees paid from community funds as a potential factor for disproportionate division.
- Argue the “Just and Right” standard as the primary vehicle for recovery rather than seeking a separate money judgment.
Citation
Gan v. Mathijssen, __ S.W.3d __ (Tex. App.—Austin 2026, no pet.).
Full Opinion
~~2c62da6a-0790-4199-81e0-491f9217f88c~~
Share this content:
