REVERSED and REMANDED; and Opinion Filed May 19, 2015.
S
Court of Appeals
In The
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-00469-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF: D.T.S., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DF-03-1889-R
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
Before Justices Bridges, Lang, and Schenck
Opinion by Justice Schenck
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
1
Because all issues are settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.
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.
/David J. Schenck/
DAVID J. SCHENCK
JUSTICE
140469F.P05
–2–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
IN THE INTEREST OF: D.T.S., A CHILD On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District
Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-14-00469-CV Trial Court Cause No. DF-03-1889-R.
Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck.
Justices Bridges and Lang participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the order of the trial court is
REVERSED and this cause is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings.
It is ORDERED that appellant EDWIN SORENSEN recover his costs of this appeal
from appellee BARBARA SORENSEN.
Judgment entered this 19th day of May, 2015.
–3–
in the Interest Of: D.T.S., a Child
Combined Opinion