In the Interest of: D.T.S., A Child v. << (2015)

MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

Edwin Sorenson (Father) appeals a trial court's “revised rendition” modifying his child-support obligation, urging that the trial court erred in declining to reduce his child-support obligation.   In a previous opinion, we concluded section 154.132 of the Texas Family Code controlled the subject matter and agreed with Father that he was entitled to an offset of $1,078 in social-security benefits D.T.S. receives against his child-support obligation of $925.   See In re D.T.S., a Child, No. 05–12–00110–CV, 2013 WL 4082302 (Tex.App.—Dallas Aug. 13, 2013) (mem.op).  We then reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings.  Id. On remand, Father filed a motion requesting the trial court to apply the $1,078 in social-security benefits against his child-support obligation of $925 in accordance with this Court's opinion.   Mother did not respond or make any motion of her own to request an increase in Father's child-support obligation.   After two hearings at which neither party offered additional evidence, the trial court again increased Father's child-support obligation to $1,867.75 and ordered that amount be offset by $1,078 in social-security benefits, leaving a balance of $785.75.   This “revised rendition” is inconsistent with this Court's opinion and judgment of August 13, 2013.   Therefore, we conclude the trial court did not have the authority to enter this order.  Tex. Fam.Code § 156.004 (providing Texas Rules of Civil Procedure apply to suit for modification);  Tex.R. Civ. P. 67, 301;  Phillips v. Bramlett, 407 S.W.3d 229, 234 (Tex.2013) (authority of trial court limited by appellate court mandate and judgment on remand).   We sustain Father's issue.

We reverse the trial court's judgment and remand this cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and this Court's opinion of August 13, 2013.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Because all issues are settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion.  Tex.R.App. P. 47.4.

Opinion by Justice Schenck