Josiah Reed Burns v. Lindsey Brooke Rowe

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
• Decided: January 23, 2026
• Docket: 03-25-00744-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-25-00744-CV

Josiah Reed Burns, Appellant

v.

Lindsey Brooke Rowe, Appellee

FROM THE 483RD DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY NO. 22-0845, THE HONORABLE ALICIA KEY, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Josiah Reed Burns filed a motion with this Court challenging the trial

court’s order finding him not indigent. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145 (“Payment of Costs Not

Required”); see also Tex. R. App. P. 20.1 (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 Bell v. Bell,

No. 03-24-00597-CV, 2024 WL 5241044, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 23, 2024, no pet.)

(per curiam) (mem. op.) (noting prior abatement and direction to trial court to issue sufficiently

detailed findings when initial findings did not comply with Rule 145); McFadden v. Webb,

No. 03-23-00572-CV, 2024 WL 149293, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 12, 2024, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (same). On December 10, 2025, the trial court made such findings, and

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

Having reviewed the motion, the clerk’s record, including the supplemental

record containing the December 10, 2025 findings, and the reporter’s record from the 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

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.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (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.) (per curiam) (mem. op.).

__________________________________________ Rosa Lopez Theofanis, Justice

Before Justices Triana, Kelly, and Theofanis

Filed: January 23, 2026