Understanding Spousal Maintenance and Intentional Underemployment in Dallas Divorces
When navigating a divorce in Dallas, Texas, understanding how courts calculate spousal maintenance can significantly impact your financial future. A recent Court of Appeals of Texas decision, H. v. H., filed August 6, 2025, provides critical insights into how Texas courts handle spousal maintenance awards, especially when one spouse claims the other is intentionally underemployed. If you’re considering divorce or already in the process, this case demonstrates why consulting with a knowledgeable Dallas divorce attorney is essential to protecting your interests.
Per the published opinion, the H. case addresses a fundamental question that affects many Dallas-area families: Can a trial court base spousal maintenance on an earning potential calculation, or must it rely on actual income? The Court of Appeals answered this question clearly, affirming the trial court’s decision to award spousal maintenance but reversing the amount awarded. This decision has important implications for anyone involved in family law proceedings across Dallas, including Irving, Richardson, Garland, Mesquite, DeSoto, and Grand Prairie.
Understanding spousal maintenance awards requires knowing the statutory framework, the specific facts that qualify someone for maintenance, and how courts calculate these awards. The H. case illustrates both the eligibility requirements and the strict limitations on calculating maintenance amounts, information critical for Dallas residents seeking a Dallas divorce lawyer consultation.
Case Background: Q.H. v. K.H. in Williamson County
Q.H.H (Q.H.) and K.A.H. (K.H.) married in 1998 and separated over twenty years later in 2019, after more than two decades together. The couple had three adult children at the time of trial, ranging from ages 16 to 21. Like many Dallas-area divorces, this case involved complex issues including property division, child custody arrangements, and spousal support.
Q.H. filed for divorce citing insupportability as the sole ground. K.H.’s counterpetition alleged both cruel treatment and insupportability but also requested spousal maintenance, a critical distinction that would shape the entire case. The trial was bifurcated, with a jury first determining the grounds for divorce and subsequently a bench trial addressing remaining issues, including K.H.’s request for ongoing spousal maintenance.
K.H. had worked during the early years of the marriage, employed at Chanel in Los Angeles as an account executive, counter manager, and part-time sales associate from 1999 through 2002. However, she had not been employed for approximately twenty years prior to trial. During that same period, she had been receiving Social Security disability benefits since 2003, in the amount of $1,900 monthly (with $337 of that related to child support for two younger children).
The crucial factor in this case was K.H.’s condition: secondary lymphedema of her right leg, diagnosed in 1990. This medical condition causes her leg to retain 20 to 30 pounds of fluid, creating severe swelling that results in skin breaks and frequent infections. Heat and humidity exacerbate her condition significantly. As a teenager, she had undergone lymph-transplant surgery on her left leg, which provided relief for many years, until the year before trial when her condition deteriorated and her left leg began swelling like her right leg.
Q.H. worked as a district manager for 24 Hour Fitness for many years, earning substantial income documented by IRS W-2 forms: $135,240 gross in 2017, $128,575 gross in 2018, and $141,918 gross in 2019. However, he was furloughed during the COVID pandemic in 2020. At the time of trial, he was earning approximately $3,300 monthly from self-employment as a “life coach” and as a part-time subcontractor, plus relying on parental financial support.
At trial, K.H. presented a detailed budget showing monthly income of $6,172 (consisting of $1,972 in disability benefits, $1,200 in child support, and $3,000 in loaned funds from her parents) and itemized monthly expenses of $9,956.50 for herself and the children. The shortfall between her income and expenses was substantial, more than $3,700 monthly.
Legal Analysis: Spousal Maintenance Eligibility Under Texas Family Code § 8.051
Understanding Spousal Maintenance Eligibility in Texas
The trial court ultimately ordered Q.H. to pay K.H. spousal maintenance of $1,500 monthly beginning March 1, 2023 and continuing indefinitely. However, this straightforward outcome masks a complex legal analysis that any divorce lawyer in Dallas would recognize as critically important.
Under Texas Family Code § 8.051(2)(A), a spouse seeking spousal maintenance must demonstrate: (1) lack of sufficient property to meet minimum reasonable needs, and (2) inability to earn sufficient income to provide for minimum reasonable needs because of an incapacitating physical or mental disability. The statute provides an alternative ground under § 8.051(2)(B) for spouses married ten years or longer who lack adequate earning ability, and a third ground under § 8.051(2)(C) for custodians of children requiring substantial care due to disability.
Critically, the presumption under § 8.053 that spousal maintenance is unwarranted, which applies to ten-year marriages under § 8.051(2)(B), does not apply to disability-based claims under § 8.051(2)(A). This distinction proved favorable to K.H., eliminating an otherwise rebuttable presumption against her maintenance claim.
Establishing an Incapacitating Physical Disability
The Court of Appeals held that evidence was legally sufficient to find that K.H.’s lymphedema constituted an incapacitating physical disability preventing her from earning sufficient income for her minimum reasonable needs. The court noted that the evidence need not be limited to expert testimony, fact finders may reasonably infer incapacity from circumstantial evidence and lay witness testimony.
K.H.’s son testified that his mother retains about 35 pounds of fluid on her right leg and 10 pounds on her left leg. He observed that she has difficulty walking up stairs and performing household tasks like laundry. When she overexerts herself, working on her feet eight hours for five consecutive days, “it hurt her every single second to do it,” and she becomes “debilitated” afterward, requiring three or four days of rest to recover if infection doesn’t develop.
The court also considered K.H.’s employment history. Despite having a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Southern California and years of successful work experience at Chanel, she had remained unemployed for over twenty years. Her mother testified that K.H. is unable to work due to her disability and emphasized “no one quite understands the fragility of her health.”
This multifaceted evidence, medical history, family testimony, employment records, and the personal observations of her adult son, created a compelling narrative about the severity of K.H.’s condition. The Court of Appeals concluded that “evidence was sufficient to find that lymphedema rendered wife unable to earn sufficient income for her minimum reasonable needs.”
Determining Minimum Reasonable Needs
The trial court must determine “minimum reasonable needs” on a case-by-case, fact-specific basis. The statute provides no definition, and neither exactitude in accounting nor precise mathematical proof is required. Instead, an itemized list of monthly income and expenses constitutes the “most helpful” evidence.
K.H. submitted a detailed budget that included:
- Housing and utilities: $3,009 monthly
- Groceries and meals: $2,220 monthly
- Medical, vision, and mental health care: $2,053.79 monthly
- Clothing: $300 monthly
- Vehicle maintenance, insurance, and gas: $1,101 monthly
- School tuition, supplies, and children’s activities: $300 monthly
- Incidentals (haircuts, team sports, subscriptions, veterinary bills, gifts): $972.71 monthly
The total itemized expenses of $9,956.50 monthly, when compared against her income of $6,172, revealed a significant monthly deficit of approximately $3,785. This gap was not theoretical, it represented real expenses K.H. and her children faced monthly while residing in Williamson County.
Importantly, the trial court properly considered both K.H.’s child support income and the corresponding child-related expenses. K.H. would receive $1,200 in monthly child support, but she also bore the costs of housing, food, clothing, and education for two children living with her. This approach ensures that spousal maintenance calculations account for genuine parental responsibilities.
The Critical Issue: Calculating Spousal Maintenance Based on Actual Income vs. Earning Potential
The Court’s Decision on Income Calculation
While the Court of Appeals upheld K.H.’s eligibility for spousal maintenance, it reversed the amount awarded. This distinction highlights a fundamental principle that any Dallas family law attorney must understand: eligibility and calculation are distinct legal issues with different standards and authorities.
The trial court ordered $1,500 monthly in spousal maintenance based on what it calculated as Q.H.’s “deemed income” or “earning potential” of $120,000 annually. The trial judge explicitly stated during post-trial proceedings that he was not considering Q.H.’s actual gross income because of his “intentional underemployment.” The judge reasoned that Q.H., with his prior skill set as a district manager for 24 Hour Fitness earning $135,000-$141,000 annually, should not be permitted to avoid spousal maintenance obligations by voluntarily accepting a “life coach” position earning only $3,300 monthly.
The Distinction Between Child Support and Spousal Maintenance
Here’s where the case becomes legally critical: Texas Family Code § 154.066(a) specifically authorizes trial courts to base child support on an obligor’s earning potential when “the actual income of the obligor is significantly less than what the obligor could earn because of intentional unemployment or underemployment.” Under this provision, courts may apply support guidelines to earning potential rather than actual income.
However, Family Code § 8.055 governs spousal maintenance and contains “no equivalent provision” authorizing courts to assess spousal maintenance based on earning potential. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals had previously recognized this distinction in In re Marriage of C. (2022), which the H. court cited with approval.
This legal distinction, that child support and spousal maintenance are governed by different statutory chapters with different calculation methodologies, is precisely the type of nuanced distinction that separates exceptional representation from adequate representation. A child custody and child support lawyer in Dallas must understand that the same obligor’s income might be calculated differently depending on whether the case involves child support, spousal maintenance, or both.
The Mathematics of the Appeal
The trial court awarded $1,500 monthly in spousal maintenance. Section 8.055 caps spousal maintenance at the lesser of: (1) $5,000, or (2) 20 percent of the spouse’s average monthly gross income.
At trial, Q.H. testified to earning an average of $3,300 monthly. Twenty percent of $3,300 equals $660—the maximum amount permitted by statute for his actual income level. Yet the trial court ordered $1,500, more than double the statutory maximum.
The Court of Appeals concluded unequivocally: “There is no evidence that Quinn’s average monthly gross income of $3,300 supports a spousal-maintenance award of $1,500, and that amount, which exceeds 20% of Q.’s average monthly gross income under section 8.055, constitutes an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.”
Practical Implications for Dallas-Area Divorces
What This Means for Spouses with Disabilities
The H. decision strongly affirms that Texas courts recognize the reality of incapacitating conditions that prevent employment. If you’re a Dallas-area resident with a significant health condition, whether lymphedema, arthritis, back injuries, or other documented disabilities, this case supports your eligibility for spousal maintenance under § 8.051(2)(A).
Critically, you need not present expert medical testimony exclusively. Your personal testimony about your condition, combined with lay testimony from family members who observe your limitations daily, can constitute sufficient evidence. This accessibility makes it more feasible for individuals without substantial resources to successfully establish disability-based maintenance eligibility.
What This Means for Higher-Earning Spouses
Conversely, if you’re a higher-earning spouse facing a spousal maintenance claim, the H. case provides important protections. Your ex-spouse cannot base maintenance claims on hypothetical earning potential or theoretical income. Trial courts must calculate spousal maintenance based on your actual gross income as defined by § 8.055.
This has significant implications. If you’ve reduced your income intentionally or unintentionally, if you’ve transitioned to self-employment, or if you’ve experienced employment disruption (like pandemic-related furloughs), the calculation still begins with your actual documented income. This doesn’t mean you’re protected completely, different strategies might have included Q.H. documenting his job search efforts and demonstrating genuine inability to obtain comparable employment. But the legal framework requires actual income calculations, not speculation about what you “could earn.”
Strategic Considerations in Income Disputes
The H. case reveals an important strategic consideration: when significant employment changes occur during separation or divorce proceedings, both parties benefit from contemporaneous documentation. Q.H. testified about his unemployment from 2020-2021 and his subsequent self-employment. Documentation of job applications, offers declined, skills assessments, and actual earnings provides the factual foundation that trial courts must use.
Likewise, the case illustrates why detailed budget documentation matters. K.H.’s carefully itemized budget, not simply a claim of financial need, but a detailed accounting of actual expenses, provided the foundation for the trial court’s eligibility findings. Her budget included specific categories that made the claimed expenses transparent and verifiable.
Key Takeaways for Dallas Divorcing Couples
The H. v. H.decision reinforces several critical principles for anyone navigating divorce in Dallas and surrounding areas including Irving, Richardson, Garland, Mesquite, DeSoto, and Grand Prairie:
First, spousal maintenance eligibility and calculation are distinct legal inquiries. Proving eligibility under § 8.051(2)(A) does not automatically determine the maintenance amount.
Second, actual income not earning potential or hypothetical income, controls spousal maintenance calculations under § 8.055. This creates a clear distinction from child support law and protects obligors from speculative income imputation.
Third, incapacitating disabilities need not be established exclusively through expert testimony. Lay witness observations and the disabled spouse’s personal testimony constitute legally sufficient evidence when supported by consistent facts and credible details.
Fourth, detailed budgets matter significantly. Specific, itemized expense documentation carries more weight than general claims of financial need.
Fifth, employment changes during the separation period create important legal considerations that require careful documentation and strategic explanation to the court.
Strategic Insights: The Value of Experienced Representation
The H. case provides insight into how experienced representation shapes outcomes. Different strategies might have affected this case’s trajectory at trial and appeal:
Q.H.’s counsel could have presented more comprehensive evidence regarding his post-pandemic employment search, documented offers received and reasons declined, and expert testimony about job market conditions in his industry. This documentation might not have changed the statutory limitation on spousal maintenance calculation, but it could have strengthened the record on appeal.
Similarly, strategies might have included challenging the trial court’s expense calculations, perhaps arguing that certain child-related expenses were inflated or unnecessary. A divorce lawyer in Dallas understands that challenging an opposing party’s budget requires more than asserting the expenses are excessive; it requires detailed counter-evidence with supporting documentation.
This case exemplifies why working with an attorney with 25+ years of Dallas family law experience, one who provides honest assessment of realistic outcomes rather than false promises, proves invaluable. The right representation means understanding the distinction between child support and spousal maintenance calculations, knowing what budget documentation courts find persuasive, and recognizing when statutory limits constrain discretionary authority.
Taking Action: Consult with a Dallas Divorce Attorney
If you’re considering divorce or facing spousal maintenance claims in Dallas, the stakes are too high for inadequate representation. The H.case demonstrates that understanding Texas Family Code § 8.051, § 8.055, and the critical distinctions between different types of support awards directly affects your financial security.
At our Dallas divorce law firm, we provide honest assessments balanced with strategic acumen. We’ve served the Dallas metropolitan area, including Irving, Richardson, Garland, Mesquite, DeSoto, Grand Prairie, Lakewood, Highland Park, Cockrell Hill, Lancaster, Seagoville, and Duncanville, for more than 25 years. We don’t promise outcomes we can’t deliver. Instead, we explain Texas family law clearly, answer your questions directly, and develop strategies grounded in statutory requirements and appellate precedent.
Whether you’re seeking spousal maintenance as a disabled spouse, defending against spousal maintenance claims, navigating child support and spousal maintenance simultaneously, or facing any other family law matter, we’re ready to help. Our firm specializes in the complex calculations and strategic decisions illustrated by cases like H. v. H..
Don’t navigate spousal maintenance claims or divorce proceedings alone. Schedule your consultation today with our experienced Dallas divorce attorney team. We’ll explain your rights, discuss realistic outcomes under Texas law, and develop a strategic approach to protect your interests. Contact us now to speak with a Dallas divorce lawyer who combines decades of experience with compassionate client guidance.
