Texas Divorce Attorney Blog
A court may award Texas spousal maintenance in a divorce case if the spouse seeking maintenance meets the statutory requirements. Generally, a spouse seeking maintenance must show that they lack sufficient property to provide for their own minimum reasonable needs and meet one of the other statutory conditions, including being unable to earn sufficient income due to an incapacitating disability. Tex. Fam. Code § 8.051.
“Minimum reasonable needs” is not defined in the Texas Family Code. The court therefore has the discretion to determine a party’s minimum reasonable needs based on the facts and circumstances of the case. Courts consider expenses including housing, clothing, and transportation. A former husband recently challenged the divorce decree that ordered him to pay spousal maintenance, arguing the wife had not proven her minimum reasonable needs.
The parties got married in Australia in 2009 and subsequently moved to Texas. Although the husband had a high-paying job, the wife only earned up to $10.50 per hour. She had significant mental and physical health issues that resulted in her unemployment in 2017.
The husband petitioned for divorce in January 2022. Before the trial, the wife had already had spinal and neck surgeries and was anticipating additional procedures. Her abilities to stand, sit, twist, bend and lift were impaired due to her medical issues. She also had generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and major depressive disorder. She relied on her neighbors to help with daily life.
The final divorce decree, signed in December 2023, ordered the husband to pay $5,000 in monthly spousal maintenance to the wife until July 2026. At that time, the court would revisit the issue of maintenance. The court also ordered the husband to pay the wife’s attorney’s fees.
Minimum Reasonable Needs
The husband appealed, arguing the wife failed to prove her minimum reasonable needs. He argued a maintenance award is limited to “needs’ and does not include “wants,” that the amount awarded must be the minimum amount to pay for the spouse’s needs, and both the needs and awarded amount must be reasonable.
The husband did not cite any authority showing that the court must only consider the cheapest basic essentials in determining a party’s minimum reasonable needs. In this case, the trial court found the wife had a number of health conditions and that her conditions would “require continued surgeries into the foreseeable future.” The court found she was disabled and would be so indefinitely. The court also found she did not have any income, her physical and mental conditions prevented her from earning, and she would have “substantial” healthcare expenses. The trial court also found the husband’s monthly gross income exceeded $32,000.
The wife’s itemization of her monthly expenses was admitted without objection. The husband acknowledged the expenses listed were reasonable, with the exception of veterinary and gas expenses.
The appeals court noted the trial court could have used common sense and knowledge to conclude that housing fell within the scope of the wife’s minimum reasonable needs. The wife had listed a $1,400 per month for mortgage, $800 in taxes, and $128.33 in insurance. The court could also infer that utilities, totaling $240, were within the scope of minimum reasonable needs. The court could also have inferred that the listed $75 for phone service, $770 for health expenses, and $65 for medication were also part of the wife’s minimum reasonable needs. The wife listed a car payment for $357 with $72 per month for auto insurance. Additionally, the wife had listed $612 per month for food expenses. The court noted these expenses, which the husband had agreed were reasonable, totaled about $4,519.
The appeals court acknowledged this total was less than the amount awarded by the court, but noted that the exhibit had also listed an expense related to continuing education for the wife of about $2,166. The appeals court noted the husband had not disputed the wife’s lack of income, lack of education after high school, disability, or her claim she had not earned more than $10.50 per hour since she came to America. He had stated it did “not seem unreasonable she wants to go back to school.” The appeals court noted the wife was a disabled person without a current income who had not earned more than $10.50 per hour who would have to maintain a home and vehicle and pay for her food and clothing and who was seeking education beyond high school. The appeals court noted that one could not reasonable deny that further education was a necessity for a person in those circumstances and that the husband had acknowledged that the educational expense was reasonable.
The total expenses, including the educational expense, exceeded the $5,000 award. The appeals court concluded the wife’s itemized expense list, the expenses it identified, the husband’s agreement the expenses discussed above were reasonable, and the wife’s health, education, and earning ability together constituted some evidence supporting the $5,000 award.
The appeals court affirmed the divorce decree, but reversed the temporary orders awarding the wife attorney’s fees on appeal, concluding her motion had been untimely.
Meet with a Skilled High-Asset Divorce Lawyer
Spousal maintenance can be a significant issue in high net-worth divorces where one party came into the marriage with significantly more assets or where one spouse has a much greater earning capacity, particularly if the lower-earning spouse’s earning potential has been diminished due to disability or time out of the workforce as a homemaker. If you are considering ending your marriage with a large discrepancy in assets and earning potential between the spouses, you should meet with a knowledgeable Texas divorce attorney. Call 214.692.8200 to set up a consultation with McClure Law Group.