and thus justify granting Matt the exclusive right to determine C.G.'s residence; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by separating the children without a "clear and compelling reason;" (3) the trial court erred in altering the terms of extended summer possession agreed to during mediation; and (4) the unequal allocation of the cell phone bill and income tax refund was not a just and right division of the estate. We review the trial court's rulings on these issues for abuse of discretion. Grayson v. Grayson, 103 S.W.3d 559, 561 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2003, no pet.). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts without reference to guiding rules or principles (legal issues), or acts arbitrarily or unreasonably (factual issues).
We evaluate most appealable issues in family law cases, including the issues raised in this case, under an abuse of discretion standard. In re A.B.P., 291 S.W.3d 91, 95 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.); see Rivas v. Rivas, 452 S.W.3d 49, 54 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2014, no pet.) (indicating family law issues such as property division, conservatorship, visitation or child support are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard); Grayson v. Grayson, 103 S.W.3d 559, 561 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (same). A trial court abuses its discretion, so as to require reversal, when it acts arbitrarily or unreasonably without reference to any guiding rules or principles.
Most of the appealable issues in a family law case are evaluated against an abuse of discretion standard. In re A.B.P., 291 S.W.3d 91, 95 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.); Grayson v. Grayson, 103 S.W.3d 559, 561 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court acted without reference to any guiding rules or principles; in other words, whether the act was arbitrary or unreasonable.
A trial court has the authority to order that child support payments continue after the obligee's death. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 154.013(a); Grayson v. Grayson, 103 S.W.3d 559, 563 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003, no pet.). Also, a trial court has the authority to order a parent to maintain a life insurance policy for the child's benefit for so long as the child support obligation remains in effect.
"A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts without reference to guiding rules or principles (legal issues) or acts arbitrarily or unreasonably (factual issues)." Gardner, 229 S.W.3d at 751 (citing Grayson v. Grayson, 103 S.W.3d 559, 561 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.)). When an appellant challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence in cases where the proper standard is abuse of discretion, we engage in a two-prong analysis: (1) whether the trial court had sufficient information upon which to exercise its discretion; and (2) whether the trial court erred in its application of discretion.
The trial court has discretion to order the noncustodial parent to pay transportation costs. See Grayson v. Grayson, 103 S.W.3d 559, 563 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (holding trial court had authority to require father to pay the cost of airline tickets and escort fees for children to visit him and did not abuse its discretion in so ordering); In re D.T.M., No. 01-01-00241-CV, 2002 WL 31521151, at *6 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 14, 2002, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering father to pay 100% of travel expenses). The court's order is also consistent with the standard possession order, which requires the noncustodial parent to provide transportation to the visitation and, with exceptions not applicable in this case, authorizes the trial court to require the noncustodial parent to provide transportation back to the primary conservator's residence after the period of possession.
The trial court had authority to order Thomas to maintain a life insurance policy for the children's benefit for so long as his child support obligation remained in effect. SeeMiles v. Peacock , 229 S.W.3d 384, 389 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) ; Niskar v. Niskar , 136 S.W.3d 749, 759 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2004, no pet.) ; Grayson v. Grayson , 103 S.W.3d 559, 563 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). Consequently, the court also had authority to hold Thomas in contempt for failing to comply with the court's order.
In family law cases, issues such as conservatorship, visitation, or child support are evaluated against an abuse of discretion standard. Grayson v. Grayson, 103 S.W.3d 559, 561 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2003, no pet.). When an appellant challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence in cases where the proper standard is abuse of discretion, we engage in a two-prong analysis: (1) whether the trial court had sufficient information upon which to exercise its discretion; and (2) whether the trial court erred in its application of discretion. Gardner v. Gardner, 229 S.W.3d 747, 751 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2007, no pet.).
In family law cases, we review the trial court's division of property for an abuse of discretion. Grayson v. Grayson, 103 S.W.3d 559, 561 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.); see also Schlueter v. Schlueter, 975 S.W.2d 584, 589 (Tex. 1998) (recognizing trial court is afforded wide discretion in dividing marital estate). Under an abuse of discretion standard, legal and factual insufficiency are not independent grounds of error, but rather are relevant factors in assessing whether the trial court abused its discretion.
However, appellants assert error appears on the face of the record because the trial court improperly rendered a default judgment on an amended pleading that had not been served. See Grayson v. Grayson, 103 S.W.3d 559, 561 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (only restriction on scope of restricted appeal review is that error must appear on face of the record). Appellee argues that a petition is required only to give fair notice of a claim, and a claim for unliquidated damages need only state that the damages sought exceed the minimal jurisdictional limits of the court.