Family Code § 154.062 Net Resources Evidence | Bagley (2026)

In the Matter of the Marriage of Kara Bagley and Jason Bagley and in the Interest of J.B. and K.B., Children, 12-25-00238-CV, August 12, 2026.

On appeal from 354th Judicial District Court, Rains County, Texas

Synopsis

Texas Family Code § 154.062 does not allow a trial court to reverse-engineer an obligor’s net monthly resources from evidence of monthly expenses when the record contains no evidence of actual income received. A guideline child-support award built on that methodology is an abuse of discretion and must be reversed and remanded.

Relevance to Family Law

This opinion matters directly to Texas divorce and SAPCR practice because child-support rulings often are tried on thin records, especially in short bench trials, default prove-ups, and highly contested temporary-orders or final hearings where counsel assumes the court can “fill in the gaps.” Bagley confirms that it cannot. If the record does not contain evidence of statutory resources under Family Code § 154.062—or, failing that, a basis to apply the minimum-wage presumption under § 154.068—the child-support component of a divorce decree is vulnerable on appeal, which can also destabilize negotiated or adjudicated positions on extracurricular expenses, medical support, offsets, and even broader decree structure.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Jason Bagley appealed a final divorce decree that required him to pay monthly child support calculated from purported net monthly resources of $7,237.18. The record, however, showed only limited testimony about his employment and expenses. Jason testified that he worked as a superintendent construction manager for Highland Homes, but neither party offered evidence quantifying his wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, interest income, dividends, self-employment income, rental income, or any other income actually received.

Kara likewise testified that Jason was employed and that he provided health and dental insurance for the children through his employment. She requested guideline child support and asked that the parties share extracurricular expenses equally. But she did not introduce pay stubs, tax returns, W-2s, 1099s, bank records, employer records, or testimony establishing the amount of Jason’s actual income.

Despite that evidentiary gap, the trial court found Jason’s net monthly resources to be $7,237.18 and ordered support at 25% for two children, stepping down to 20% upon emancipation of the older child. On appeal, Kara argued the record still supported the result because Jason had submitted a monthly expense statement and testified to certain payments and anticipated contributions, including medical expenses, baton lessons, and retirement contributions. The Tyler court rejected that theory.

Issues Decided

• Whether Texas Family Code § 154.062 permits a trial court to calculate an obligor’s net monthly resources from monthly expenses when the record contains no evidence of wages, salary, or other income actually received.
• Whether a child-support award based on that methodology constitutes an abuse of discretion.
• Whether evidence of expenses, isolated payments, or anticipated contributions can substitute for the statutory proof required for a guideline child-support calculation.

Rules Applied

The court applied the familiar abuse-of-discretion standard governing child-support orders, while treating legal and factual sufficiency as components of that review. In practical terms, the question was whether the trial court had sufficient information to exercise discretion and whether it applied that discretion reasonably.

The central statute was Texas Family Code § 154.062. The court emphasized that the statute defines the resource categories used to calculate net resources, including:

• wages and salary;
• interest, dividends, and royalty income;
• self-employment income;
• net rental income; and
• all other income actually being received.

The court also referenced Texas Family Code § 154.068(a), which supplies a minimum-wage presumption when there is no evidence of resources as defined by § 154.062(b).

On precedent, the court distinguished In re Marriage of Renteria, explaining that Renteria involved actual income evidence—tax returns, profit-and-loss statements, W-2s, and 1099s—plus evidence undermining the accuracy of the obligor’s reported income. In that setting, personal expenses paid through a business account supported a finding that actual resources exceeded the obligor’s claimed numbers. But Renteria did not authorize a court to use expenses as the starting point for net-resources calculation when no competent income evidence exists at all.

The court also relied on the Fort Worth court’s recent reasoning in Mitchell v. Young, which expressly rejected the proposition that monthly expenses can stand in for evidence of income or resources.

Application

The Tyler court treated the trial court’s net-resources finding as unsupported because the record contained no evidence of the categories of resources identified in § 154.062. Jason’s employment status alone did not establish the amount of his earnings. Nor did Kara’s testimony that he carried the children’s insurance through his employer. There was simply no evidentiary bridge from “he has a job” to “his net monthly resources are $7,237.18.”

The court then addressed Kara’s attempt to defend the decree by aggregating various expense-related data points: a monthly expense statement, a one-time medical payment, testimony that Jason would be willing to pay a monthly amount for baton lessons, and an unspecified retirement contribution. Even on arithmetic terms, those items did not match the trial court’s number. More fundamentally, the court held that the argument failed as a matter of law. Expenses are not the same thing as wages, salary, compensation, or other income actually received. To permit trial courts to infer net resources from expenditures would effectively rewrite § 154.062 and allow support awards untethered to statutory proof.

The court’s discussion of Renteria is especially important for practitioners. It acknowledged that expenses can play a role in testing the credibility of an obligor’s reported income when there is already competent evidence of income in the record. But expenses cannot replace that income proof altogether. That distinction is the opinion’s strategic core: impeachment use is permissible; substitution use is not.

Holding

The court held that Texas Family Code § 154.062 requires a child-support calculation to rest on evidence of the obligor’s actual resources, including wages, salary, interest, dividends, self-employment income, rental income, and other income actually received. Monthly expenses are not probative evidence of net resources and cannot substitute for the statutory evidence required to support a guideline child-support award.

The court further held that, because the record contained no evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that Jason’s net monthly resources were $7,237.18, the child-support award constituted an abuse of discretion. The support order therefore had to be reversed and remanded.

Practical Application

For trial lawyers, Bagley is a record-building case. If you represent the obligee, do not assume the court can infer income from lifestyle, spending patterns, or the existence of employment. You need admissible evidence that ties directly to § 154.062 resource categories. That means payroll evidence, tax materials, business records, bank deposits tied to income streams, employer testimony, or party admissions that quantify actual receipts. If those numbers are unavailable, then frame the case expressly around the minimum-wage presumption under § 154.068 and make sure the court’s findings track that route.

For obligor’s counsel, Bagley offers a clean appellate and trial objection point. When the opposing party tries to build guideline support from expense sheets, household budgets, or generalized testimony that your client “must make more than he says,” this case provides a direct statutory response: expenses may impeach reported income, but they are not themselves evidence of net resources. That distinction may be outcome-determinative in final trials involving cash businesses, incomplete discovery, self-employed parties, and informal financial practices.

The opinion also has implications beyond basic monthly support. Child-support calculations often serve as the anchor for negotiations over medical support, extracurricular allocations, uninsured expense sharing, and overall decree economics. A defective net-resources finding can therefore ripple through the structure of settlement leverage and trial strategy. In property cases, too, counsel should be careful not to let evidence useful for valuation or reimbursement arguments bleed into support calculations without a statutory income foundation.

In practice, Bagley should change how lawyers prepare prove-ups and short final hearings. A common mistake is to offer a proposed support number with little more than an employer name, a financial information statement, and a request for “guideline support.” That is not enough. If the court is going to sign a support order that survives appellate review, the evidentiary path to net resources must appear in the record.

Checklists

Proving Net Resources for the Obligee

• Obtain and offer recent pay stubs showing gross pay, withholdings, and year-to-date earnings.
• Offer W-2s, 1099s, or recent tax returns if payroll records are incomplete.
• For self-employed obligors, offer profit-and-loss statements, general ledgers, business bank statements, and tax schedules.
• Prove non-wage income streams separately, including interest, dividends, royalties, rental income, distributions, or recurring transfers.
• Tie each income source to § 154.062 categories in testimony or argument.
• Ask the trial court for express findings on monthly net resources and the evidentiary basis for them.
• If actual income cannot be established, affirmatively request application of § 154.068’s minimum-wage presumption.

Defending Against an Unsupported Support Calculation

• Object when the opposing party attempts to substitute expense evidence for income evidence.
• Emphasize that lifestyle, bills, and household spending are not statutory resources under § 154.062.
• Distinguish impeachment use of expense evidence from substitute-proof use.
• Request findings identifying the actual evidence supporting the net-resources number.
• If the record lacks competent resource evidence, argue for minimum-wage imputation rather than an unsupported higher number.
• Preserve error by challenging both the evidentiary basis and the methodology used by the trial court.

Handling Cases with Sparse Financial Records

• Use admissions, interrogatories, and requests for production early to pin down all income streams.
• Subpoena payroll and employment records directly from the employer when voluntary production is unreliable.
• In cash-income or self-employment cases, trace deposits and transfers to show actual receipts.
• Do not rely exclusively on financial information statements or informal expense summaries.
• If you intend to use expenses, use them to attack credibility of reported income only after introducing competent income evidence.
• Prepare a demonstrative or calculation summary showing exactly how the proposed net-resources figure is derived from admitted evidence.

Drafting Findings and Decrees After Trial

• Ensure the decree’s support figure matches the findings on net monthly resources and applicable percentages.
• Confirm that the findings identify a statutory basis for the resources number.
• Avoid reciting “guideline support” without record support for the underlying calculation.
• If the court is applying minimum wage, say so expressly in the findings and cite § 154.068.
• Separately address health insurance, dental insurance, and uninsured or extracurricular allocations so those rulings are not conflated with guideline support proof.
• Review the decree for arithmetic consistency, especially on step-down provisions.

Citation

In the Matter of the Marriage of Kara Bagley and Jason Bagley and in the Interest of J.B. and K.B., Children, No. 12-25-00238-CV, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. App.—Tyler Aug. 12, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~47353134-0db8-463e-b809-1cca6081f0ea~~