Sec. 8.057. MODIFICATION OF MAINTENANCE ORDER. (a) The amount of maintenance specified in a court order or the portion of a decree that provides for the maintenance of a former spouse may be modified by the filing of a motion in the court that originally rendered the order. A party affected by the order or the portion of the decree to be modified may file the motion.
(b) Notice of a motion to modify maintenance or to establish or modify a maintenance qualified domestic relations order under Subchapter H and the response to the motion, if any, are governed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure applicable to the filing of an original lawsuit. Notice must be given by service of citation, and a response must be in the form of an answer due on or before 10 a.m. of the first Monday after 20 days after the date of service. A court shall set a hearing on the motion in the manner provided by Rule 245, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
(c) After a hearing, the court may modify an original or modified order or portion of a decree providing for maintenance or a maintenance qualified domestic relations order under Subchapter H on a proper showing of a material and substantial change in circumstances that occurred after the date of the order or decree, including circumstances reflected in the factors specified in Section 8.052, relating to either party or to a child of the marriage described by Section 8.051(2)(C). The court:
(1) shall apply the modification only to payment accruing after the filing of the motion to modify; and
(2) may not increase maintenance to an amount or duration that exceeds the amount or remaining duration of the original maintenance order.
(c-1) A party who files a motion to modify maintenance based on a material and substantial change of circumstances may not be considered on that basis alone to have admitted a material and substantial change of circumstances regarding any other matter.
(d) A loss of employment or circumstances that render a former spouse unable to provide for the spouse's minimum reasonable needs by reason of incapacitating physical or mental disability that occur after the divorce or annulment are not grounds for the institution of spousal maintenance for the benefit of the former spouse.
Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 7, Sec. 1, eff. April 17, 1997. Renumbered from Sec. 8.008 by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 807, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
Amended by:
Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 486 (H.B. 901), Sec. 6, eff. September 1, 2011.
Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 64 (H.B. 867), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2021.
Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 227 (H.B. 851), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2021.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
20
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2004–2024 · leading case:
Crane v. Crane, 188 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. App. 2006).
Crane v. Crane, 188 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. App. 2006).
· cites it 7× “After hearing all the testimony, the trial court found that Appellant “cannot support herself at appropriate employment because of the incapacitating physical disability which she was found to be under at the time of divorce” and that she lacks sufficient property or income to…”
Stacey Everett v. Jamie Everett, 421 S.W.3d 918 (Tex. App. 2014).
· cites it 4× “007 (West 2006); Tex. FamlCode Ann. § 8.057 (West 2006). After a hearing on January 5, 2012, the trial court denied Appellant’s motion for reconsideration and signed the “Order for Hearing Held on July 21, 2011” which was drafted by Appel-lee.”
Kenneth Ray Waldrop v. Teresa Waldrop, 552 S.W.3d 396 (Tex. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Laws 1574 , 1577 (amended 2011) (current version at Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 8.057 (West Supp. 2017)).”
Ex Parte Rieck, 144 S.W.3d 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).
“252(b) & (e), 361.405(a)(2); TEX. HUM. RES.”
Hackenjos v. Hackenjos, 204 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. App. 2006).
“3d at 281 ; compare Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 8.057 with § 8.054(b).”
John Stephen Philips v. Gail McNease, 467 S.W.3d 688 (Tex. App. 2015).
“, Tex. Fam.Code § 8.057. Gail contends that a modification could not happen here because the grounds set forth in John’s petition are not recognized under the Family Code.”
Lou Crane v. Donald Crane (Tex. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “After hearing all the testimony, the trial court found that Appellant “cannot support herself at appropriate employment because of the incapacitating physical disability which she was found to be under at the time of divorce” and that she lacks sufficient property or income to…”
Audrey Arlene Nesbitt v. Peter Daniel Nesbitt (Tex. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Nesbitt contends that the modification of the maintenance order was improper because of a failure to comply with the statutory requirements of section 8.”
Tex. Fam. Code § 8.057(a): 2 cases
Crane v. Crane, 188 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. App. 2006).
“After hearing all the testimony, the trial court found that Appellant “cannot support herself at appropriate employment because of the incapacitating physical disability which she was found to be under at the time of divorce” and that she lacks sufficient property or income to…”
Stacey Everett v. Jamie Everett, 421 S.W.3d 918 (Tex. App. 2014).
“007 (West 2006); Tex. FamlCode Ann. § 8.057 (West 2006). After a hearing on January 5, 2012, the trial court denied Appellant’s motion for reconsideration and signed the “Order for Hearing Held on July 21, 2011” which was drafted by Appel-lee.”
Tex. Fam. Code § 8.057(b): 3 cases
Ex Parte Rieck, 144 S.W.3d 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).
“252(b) & (e), 361.405(a)(2); TEX. HUM. RES.”
Stacey Everett v. Jamie Everett, 421 S.W.3d 918 (Tex. App. 2014).
“007 (West 2006); Tex. FamlCode Ann. § 8.057 (West 2006). After a hearing on January 5, 2012, the trial court denied Appellant’s motion for reconsideration and signed the “Order for Hearing Held on July 21, 2011” which was drafted by Appel-lee.”
Tex. Fam. Code § 8.057(c): 4 cases
Crane v. Crane, 188 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. App. 2006).
“After hearing all the testimony, the trial court found that Appellant “cannot support herself at appropriate employment because of the incapacitating physical disability which she was found to be under at the time of divorce” and that she lacks sufficient property or income to…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.