Darlene C. Amrhein v. Attorney Lennie F. Bollinger, and Worminton & Bollinger Law Firm

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided April 1, 2019·No. 05-18-00567-CV·Published

Opinion

AFFIRM the Trial Court Order; and Opinion Filed April 1, 2019.

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-18-00567-CV

DARLENE C. AMRHEIN, Appellant V. ATTORNEY LENNIE F. BOLLINGER AND WORMINTON & BOLLINGER LAW FIRM, Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6 Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 006-02654-2017

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON MOTION TO REVIEW TRIAL COURT ORDER SUSTAINING CONTEST TO APPELLANT’S STATEMENT OF INABILITY TO AFFORD COURT COSTS Before Justices Whitehill, Molberg, and Nowell Opinion by Justice Molberg By order dated February 27, 2019, we construed appellant’s motion “to supplement this

court record” as requesting, in part, a review of the trial court’s order sustaining the contest to

appellant’s statement of inability to afford costs. As directed to do so by our February 27th order,

the trial court clerk and court reporter have filed a record of the trial court proceedings on

appellant’s claim of indigence. We have reviewed the record and conclude, under the applicable

abuse-of-discretion standard of review, the contest was correctly sustained. See Basaldua v.

Hadden, 298 S.W.3d 238, 241 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, no pet.) (per curiam); Donalson v.

Barr, 86 S.W.3d 718, 719-20 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (per curiam). As reflected in the record, the court reporter filed a contest to appellant’s statement, and a

hearing was held. The parties were notified of the hearing, but appellant failed to appear and failed

to request a continuance.

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145, which governs statements of inability to afford

payment of costs, places the burden of proof at a contest hearing on the party who filed the

statement. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 145(f)(5). Not having appeared at the hearing, appellant failed to

satisfy her burden of proof, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the contest.

See id. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order.

/Ken Molberg/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE

180567NF.P05

–2–

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Darlene C. Amrhein v. Attorney Lennie F. Bollinger, and Worminton & Bollinger Law Firm, (Tex. Ct. App. 2019).

Darlene C. Amrhein v. Attorney Lennie F. Bollinger, and Worminton & Bollinger Law Firm (Darlene C. Amrhein v. Attorney Lennie F. Bollinger, and Worminton & Bollinger Law Firm) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Basaldua v. Hadden
298 S.W.3d 238 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2009)
Donalson v. Barr
86 S.W.3d 718 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002)