Ra Hermes Velthra v. Investorade Community Holdings, LLC Dba Texas Hill Country Resort

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)
• Decided: April 8, 2026
• Docket: 04-26-00206-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-26-00206-CV

Ra Hermes VELTHRA, Appellant

v.

INVESTORADE COMMUNITY HOLDINGS, LLC dba Texas Hill Country Resort, Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas Trial Court No. 26-010-DCCV-00047 Honorable M. Patrick Maguire, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice H. Todd McCray, Justice Velia J. Meza, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 8, 2026

DISMISSED

Appellant Ra Hermes Velthra has filed a notice of appeal seeking appellate review of an

order concerning his ability to pay court costs. The trial court conducted a hearing on Velthra’s

Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs on February 26, 2026, and determined

that Velthra had access to the necessary funds and was therefore required to pay court costs.

Appellant relies on Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145(g) as a basis for filing this appeal.

However, Rule 145(g) does not authorize interlocutory appeals. Rather, it provides a means to 04-26-00206-CV

challenge indigency-related orders within the context of an existing appeal. See TEX. R. CIV. P.

145(g) (authorizing party contesting finding of non-indigency to “challenge the order by motion

filed in the court of appeals with jurisdiction over an appeal from the judgment in the case”)

(emphasis added); Interest of P.M.M., No. 04-23-00552-CV, 2023 WL 8896898, at *1 (Tex.

App.—San Antonio Dec. 27, 2023, no pet.).

Accordingly, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this cause should not be

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant responded, reiterating his desire to challenge the trial

court’s finding that he is able to pay court costs. While he attached the trial court’s order regarding

indigency, he offered no evidence of a final judgment in the underlying dispute that would support

this court’s jurisdiction. Because Rule 145(g) does not independently authorize an interlocutory

appeal, we dismiss this cause for lack of jurisdiction.

-2-