Rustin Wright v. Ashley Womack

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 12, 2025
• Docket: 06-25-00024-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-25-00024-CV

RUSTIN WRIGHT, Appellant

V.

ASHLEY WOMACK, Appellee

On Appeal from the 62nd District Court Lamar County, Texas Trial Court No. 90398

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 25, 2025, Appellant Rustin Wright filed in this Court an “Emergency Motion

to Declare Void and Strike Trial Court’s Order Requiring Payment of Costs, with Advisory

Notice Regarding Established Indigency Status and Appellate Jurisdiction.” Pursuant to Rule

145(g)(1) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Wright challenges the trial court’s order finding

that he was able to pay costs. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 145(g)(1). For the reasons below, we overrule

Wright’s issue.

I. Standard of Review and Applicable Law

Rule 145(f) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure states, “When a Statement [of inability

to pay costs] has been filed, the declarant must not be ordered to pay costs unless . . . procedural

requirements have been satisfied.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 145(f). However, the clerk, the court

reporter, or a party may file a motion to require payment of costs. TEX. R. CIV. P. 145(e)(1).

The motion “must contain sworn evidence—not merely allegations—either that the Statement

was materially false when made or that because of changed circumstances, it is no longer true.”

Id. Even then, a declarant may “not be required to pay costs without an oral evidentiary

hearing.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 145(f)(1). “The declarant must be given 10 days’ notice of the

hearing.” Id. At a Rule 145 hearing, the declarant has the burden to prove his inability to afford

court costs. Id.

When an appellate court reviews a trial court’s ruling on a contest to a statement of

inability to pay costs, it applies an abuse-of-discretion standard. See Basaldua v. Hadden, 298

S.W.3d 238, 241 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, no. pet.) (per curiam). A trial court abuses its

2 discretion when it “acts without reference to any guiding rules or principles or in an arbitrary or

unreasonable manner.” Id.

II. Factual Background

On February 3, 2025, Wright filed a “Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court

Costs.” In his statement, Wright indicated that he had a monthly income of $2,308.00 and that

the total value of his property was $7,660.00, including, among other things, a bank account in

the amount of $5,160.00. Wright also stated that his total monthly expenses were $5,464.04,

which included, among other expenses, credit card or loan debt in the amount of $3,674.17.

However, he also indicated that his debts included a home equity line of credit of $23,178.01, as

well as approximately $82,500.00 in credit card debt.

On March 7, 2025, the court reporter (Reporter) filed a “Motion to Require Payment of

Costs” stating that the cost of the requested record amounted to $694.25. In her motion, the

Reporter maintained, “Wright can afford payment of the reporter’s record for the hearing held on

January 6, 2025, as he has previously paid for each reporter’s record he has requested.” In

support of her position, the Reporter attached multiple documents, along with a sworn statement

indicating that the documents were publicly available and that she had not altered them in any

manner.1

1 In her motion to require payment, the Reporter addressed the procedural errors contained in Wright’s statement, and she attached the following documents: (1) Wright’s statement that he was unable to pay court costs, specifically noting that Wright represented that he had $5,160.00 in his bank account, exhibit A; (2) the appraised value of Wright’s homestead property, which was $415,827.00, exhibit B; (3) the email notice from the Reporter to Wright informing him that he had been notified on January 8, 2025, that the cost of the reporter’s record of the January 6, 2025, hearing was $694.25, and (4) Wright’s email in response stating that, “if [she did] not produce the record what his next steps w[ould] be, which include[d] filing a complaint [against her] with the Judicial Branch Certification 3 On March 10, 2025, the trial court issued a notice setting a hearing on the “contest to

[Wright’s] affidavit of inability to pays costs and Motion to Require Payment of Costs” for

March 25, 2025. That same day, Wright filed an “Emergency Motion to Cancel Unlawful

Hearing on Indigency Status.” In that motion, Wright conceded that the trial court had

jurisdiction to hold the hearing. Notably, Wright did not argue that the hearing was “unlawful”

because he did not receive adequate notice of the hearing.

On March 25, 2025, the trial court held the Rule 145 hearing as scheduled. Yet, Wright

did not make an appearance. Following brief announcements, the trial court found that Wright

was able to pay the cost of the record. This challenge followed.

III Discussion

Wright contends that the trial court’s order is void because his indigency status was

conclusively established under “Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145(f) and Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 20.1(k).”2 He also maintains that “the trial court lacked jurisdiction to

issue the order because” the Reporter did not file her “contest to indigency” in a timely manner.3

Despite having adequate notice of the March 25 hearing, Wright did not make an

appearance. It was Wright’s burden to prove that he could not afford to pay the cost of the

Commission,” exhibit C. Therefore, the Reporter complied with the obligations required by Rule 145(e)(1) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 145(e)(1). 2 We note that there is no subsection (k) in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1. More importantly, Rule 20.1 simply does not apply to the circumstances of this case. See id. 3 There are no time limitations contained in Rule 145 as to when a reporter must file a motion to require payment of costs. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 145(e)(1). 4 requested reporter’s record. See TEX. R. CIV. P 145(f)(1). After noting Wright’s failure to

appear, the court issued the following order:

On March 25, 2025, the undersigned, heard the Motion to Require Payment of Costs. The court reporter appeared and Mr. Wright was noticed of this hearing on March 10, 2025, but did not appear.

After considering the motion and the response filed by Mr. Wright[,] the undersigned grants the Motion to Require Payment of Costs and finds that Mr. Wright is able to pay the costs associated with his request for the Reporter’s Records in Cause No. 90398.

Mr. Wright may challenge this order by filing a motion in the court of appeals within 10 days after the date this order is signed.

Because Wright did not appear at the hearing and he failed to present evidence to the trial

court, he did not meet his burden of proof under Rule 145. Based on the record before us, we

find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Wright was able to

pay the cost of the record.

IV. Conclusion

We overrule Wright’s issue. We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s order requiring him to

pay costs.

Charles van Cleef Justice

Date Submitted: April 15, 2025 Date Decided: May 12, 2025