Christopher Bell v. Joann Bell

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 23, 2024
• Docket: 03-24-00597-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-24-00597-CV

Christopher Bell, Appellant

v.

Joann Bell, Appellee

FROM THE 169TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY NO. 322086, THE HONORABLE CARI L. STARRITT-BURNETT, JUDGE PRESIDING

ME MO RAN DU M O PI N I O N

PER CURIAM

Appellant Christopher Bell filed a motion with this Court challenging the trial

court’s order finding him not indigent and able to pay court costs and ordering him to pay by

a certain date court costs currently due. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145(g)(1); see also Tex. R. App.

P. 20.1(b) (providing procedure for establishing inability to pay court costs on appeal).

Determining that the trial court failed to make detailed findings of fact to support its order, we

remanded the case to the trial court and ordered it to make such findings. See Tex. R. Civ.

P. 145(f)(2) (detailed findings required); see also McFadden v. Webb, No. 03-23-00572-CV,

2024 WL 149293, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 12, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam)

(noting prior abatement and direction to trial court to issue sufficiently detailed findings when initial findings did not comply with Rule 145). On December 3, 2024, the trial court made such

findings, and a supplemental clerk’s record was filed with this Court containing said findings.

Having reviewed the motion and the record, including the December 3, 2024

findings and the reporter’s record from the July 16, 2024 indigency hearing, we cannot

conclude that the trial court’s order constitutes an abuse of discretion. See Basaldua v. Hadden,

298 S.W.3d 238, 241 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, no pet.) (reviewing trial court’s order

sustaining contest to indigency under abuse-of-discretion standard); see also Thienan Bui v. Beck

& Co. Real Estate Servs., Inc., No. 03-16-00882-CV, 2017 WL 279615, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin

Jan. 19, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam) (same). Accordingly, we deny appellant’s motion.

See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145(g)(4); Schultz v. Schultz, No. 03-23-00075-CV, 2023 WL 3512081, at *1

(Tex. App.—Austin May 18, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam).

Before Justices Baker, Smith, and Theofanis

Filed: December 23, 2024