### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-05-00153- CV

Wil lia m Le e Ja c kso n, A ppe lla nt

v. Melissa D. Shackelf

ord, Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY , 391ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-03- 0928 -C, H ONO RAB LE THO MAS J. GO SSETT, JUDGE PRESI DING

O P I N I O N
Th e c ourt re po rt e r ha s f

ile d a mot ion to a bate thi s a

pp e a l, c omp la ini ngtha

t sh e did not rec eive notice of appe llant Wi lliam L ee Jackson’s f iling of a n aff idavit of i n ab i l i t y

to pay the costs within the period duringwhich cha lleng es ca n be filed to that affidavit. See Te x. R. A pp . P. 20 .1 . We wi ll a

bate thi s app e a l and

re mand fo r c on sid e ratio n o f w he the r t he c ourt re po rt e r c an f

ile a late c halleng e to J ackson’ s aff idavit of indige nce. J ackson f iled his notice of appea l a

nd an af fidavit of indig ence on J anuar y 24, 2005. Whe n, a s in

thi s c a se , th e a ff

ida vit is f ile d w iththe tr ia l court

c le rk , th a t c le rk

is r e qu ir e d to pr omp tly send a copy of the aff

idavit to the court repor

ter ( see Tex. R. App. P . 20.1(d)( 1)); the r ecor d does not indicate whe ther that oc curr ed. Appe llee Melissa Shac kelford filed a challeng e to the af fidavit on Fe bruar y 2, 2005; she demanded t hat J ackson prove his alleg ations of indig ence , and asse rted that he wa s not entitled to a fre e re porter’ s record bec ause his appe al is frivolous. See Tex. Ci v. Prac.2

& Re m. Code Ann. § 13.003(a) (2)( A) ( W est 2002). The c lerk’s r ecor d does not indicate that the court he ld a hearing or ex pressly ruled on the challeng e to J ackson’ s aff idavit. When the court doe s not rule on the c halleng e, the a lleg ations in the aff idavit are taken a s true. See Te x. R. A pp . P. 20.1(i)(4) . The c lerk’s r ecor d was filed in this Court on Marc h 11, 2005.

Court reporte r De bbie Har ris filed a motion to abate appea l on April 20, 2005. She attached an aff

idavit in which she ave rre d that she first lea rned of J ackson’ s aff

idavit when she
rec eived a

letter fr om appellant’s attorney on April 11, 2005, stating that appellant had be en found to be indige nt. No parties to the a ppeal have filed a

ny response to the court re porter’ s motion. Th e ru le s o f appe llate pr oc e dure pe rm it the pa rt ie s, the c le rk , a

nd the re po rt e r t o participate in the deter

mination of whether

an appellant should be allowed to proce ed without paying for the costs of appe al and the r ecor d. See Te x. R. Ap p. P. 20 .1 (e ). I n thi s c a se , ho we ve r, the on ly
e v i d e n c e i s t h a tt h e c o u rtr e p o rt e r w a s n o tg i v e n

t i m e l y n o t i c e t h a tw o u l d

h a v e a l l o w e d

h e r to participate in the pre scribed pr ocess. Se e id . 20.1(d) ( contest due ten day s after aff idavit filed in trial court). T he only

evidenc e bef

ore us shows that she fi l ed t h i s m otion to abate within ten day s of learning o f th e f

il in g o f th e a f

f id a v it
. T h e c h a ll e n g e s s h e r a is e s d if f e r f r o m th o s e ma d e in the
a pp e lle e ’s c ha lle ng e to t

he a ff ida vit fi le d in the tr ia l c ourt
. Thus , a c c or din g to the on ly e vid e nc e in the re c or d, the a

bs e nc e of no tic e of th e affi davit

de pr ive d th e c ourt

re po rt e r o f t

he a bil ity to pa rt ic ipate in t

he a ff ida vit -c ha lle ng e pr oc e e din g that di re c tly a ff e c te d h e r p e c un iary

int e re sts
. Th e ru le s p e rm it a ll p art ie s in te re ste d in the pr e pa ra tio n o f t he re c or d to p art ic ipate in the deter

mination of whether

a par ty can pr ocee d without pay ing f or the costs of appea l a

nd the
rec ord. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(a), (e ). On similar fa cts, the majority of the San Antonio Court ofAp pe lle e ’s fi lin g of a tim e ly c ha lle ng e in t

his c a se do e s n ot s ig nif

ic antl y dis tin g uis h th is 1 c a se fr om J.N.L . b e c a

us e a pp e lle e di d no t rai se th e same c ha lle ng e the c ourt re po rt e r p ro po se s to ra ise and thu s d id n ot p ro te c t th e re po rt e r’ s in te re sts
. 3 Appea ls abated the appea l and rema nded the cause for a

hear ing on issues r elated to the r eporte r’s challeng e to the af

fidavit of indig ence . Se e In re J .N. L. , 158 S.W .3d 527, 529-30 (Te x . App.—San An ton io 2 00 4, no pe t. h .) . T he re , th e c ourt re lie d on rul e of a pp e llate pr oc e dure 2 to a llo w the ou tof-time cha lleng e. Id
. at 530. Bu t se e id
. at 530-31 (L opez, C.J ., dissenting) (opining that rule 2 should not be ap p l i ed in t his circumstanc e). We a g ree with the majority in J.N.L. that a cour

t
re po rter w ho did

no t r e c e ive fo rm a l or

a c tua l kn ow le dg e of

the pa up e r’ s o a th, a s r e qu ir e d b y ru le 20.1(i)(1) , should be allowed to file an out-of -time contest to the cla im of indige nce. See Te x. R. 1 Ap p. P. 2 0. 1( i) (1 ). We w ou ld l ike wi se re ly on ru le 2 to susp end th e ti me limits se t f or th i n r ule 20.1(e) and (i). See Tex. R. App. P . 2 and 20.1(e ), (i).

We abate this appeal t o allow t he trial court to deter mine whether the cour

t reporte r
wa s s er v edt i m el y

wi t h a c o p y

o f t h e p aup er ’s o at h o r ot h erwi s e ti m el y ac qu i re d ac tu al kn o wl ed ge of the filing . I f she did not, the trial cour t must further dete rmine whe ther, a fter r ece iving the le tter inf or min g he r t hat a pp e lla nt h a d be e n de c lare d ind ig e nt, sh e fi le d he r m oti on to a bate wi thi n th e tim e limit s of rule 20.1( e). I f the trial c ourt finds that the cour t reporte r is entitled to a hea ring , the cour

t shall proce ed to deter

mine the merits of the court reporte r’s c halleng e to the af fidavit, whethe r the appea l is frivolous, and whether the re porter’ s rec ord is nece ssary to the resolution of this appea l from a summar

y judgme nt. See Te x. R. A

pp . P. 20 .2 (i )( 2) (B ); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Re m. Code Ann. § 13.003(a )(2)
.4 We abate this appeal t o allow the hea ring , which shall be he ld within ten day s after the trial court rec eives this refe rra l, acc ording to the require ments of rule 20.1( i)(2)( b). The pa rties shall file a motion to reinstate no late r than July 11, 2005.

Be a Ann Smith, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces B . A. Smith and Pury ear Filed: June 3, 2005