Diana Mor ris is the only

appellant in this cause . Her husband did not file a notice of appe al 1 from the tria l court’s orde r sustaining the contest to their a ffidavit of indig ence . 

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

NO. 03- 08 -00 078 -CV

Di ana L. M or r is a /k/a Di ana Ag uila r , A ppe lla nt

v. Juan Agu ilar and Margarita Aguilar , Appellees

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 250TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- F M- 98- 0001 03 , HO NORAB LE W. JEANNE MEURER , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N This appea l arises out of a suit affe cting the par ent-c hild relationship (“SAPCR”) involving appe llant Diana Morris, her husband Phill ip Morris, and her parents, appellees Juan and Marg arita A g uilar. After the trial court signe d a SAPC R or der on October 24, 2007, the Morrises 1 filed a timely

reque st for finding s o f fact and c onclusions of law. Appe llant filed an a ffidavit of indige nce on N ovember

16, 2007, stating tha

t she and her hus band ea

rned a bout $4,000 a month, had
a bo ut $ 4, 50 0 a mon th in e xpe ns e s, and ow e d a bo ut $ 17 1, 00 0 in

de bts , in c lud ingstu de nt l oa ns , c hil d support arr ear ag e, attorne y ’s fe es, and soc ial secur ity reimburse ment. On Dec ember 20, 2007, the
c ourt re po rt e r f ile d a c on te st to the a ff

ida vit of ind ig e nc e , sta tin g that she ha d re c e ive d th e a ff ida vit
o n De ce mb er

1 8 , at t ac h i n g a l et t er

fr o m ap p el l an t ’s at t o rn ey d at edDe ce mb er

1 8 an d s t at i n g,Appellee s state i n their response t hat appellant’s aff idavit of indig ence was ne ver se rved 2 on them or their attorney , thus depriving them of “the ir rig h t t o ch al l en g e Appe llant’s claim of indige nce.” Appellant’s a ffidavi t i n c lu d e d a c ertificate of ser

vice stating that the af

fidavit was se rved on a ll p art ie s in

a c c or da nc e wi th t

he ru le s o f civi l pr oc e dure on No ve mbe r 1 6, 20 07 , b ut i n th e ir response , appellee s state that they and their attorney

“have no rec ord of r ece iving the Affidavit of I ndige nce e x cept throug h a copy of the c lerk’s r ecor d.” In her r eply to appellee s’ re sponse, appe llant attache s a fa x cover

sheet fr om her attorney to appe l l ee ’s at torney

dated Nove mber 17, 2007, purp or tin g to atta c h the a ff

ida vit , an d sho wi ng that fiv e pa g e s we re se nt s uc c e ssf ull y to a pp e lle e s’ counsel’s f

ax number. 2 “Per your re quest, a c opy of the aff idavit of indige nce is e nclosed.” On Dec ember 20, the trial cour

t signe d an orde r g rantingan extension of time to hold a hear ing on the aff idavit until J anuar

y 3, 2008. On Janu ary 3, a ft e r the he ari ng , the tr ia l court sig ne d an or de r sus ta ini ngthe c ourt re po rt e r’ s c on te st and deny ing the aff

idavit of indige nce. A

ppellant timely

filed a notice of appe al from that or der. On ap p ea l , ap p el l an tco mp l ai n s th at t h e c o u rt re p o rt er ’s co n t es twa s fi l edtoo late, that the trial cour

t’s order did not state the court’ s rea sons for sustaining the contest a nd thus was in err or, and that the e vidence produce d at the hea ring did not support the trial court’s de cision to sustain the
c on te st. Ap pe lle e s h a ve re sp on de d, a lth ou g h th e y did no t pa rt ic ipate in t

he he ari ngon

the c on te st
or fi le a c on te st the mse lve s. We will consider appe llees’ a rg uments despit e t h eir lac k of 2 p ar t i ci p at i o ni nt h e i n d i gen ce h ea ri n g.

Appellant firs t complains that the court r eporte r’s c ontest was filed too late
. Howeve r, at the he aringon the court repor ter’s contest, appellant did not protest that the c ontest was fi l e d t o o l a t e o r

t h a tt h e t r i a l c o u rts h o u l d n o tb e h o l d i n g t h e c o n t e s t
. I n s t e a d , t h e o n l y arg ume nts raised a bout the contest we re r elated to the me rits of the conte st an d the alleg ations in appellant’s aff idavit. Nor did appe llant file any motion or other document with the tria l court ra ising the issue of the c ontest’s timeliness. W ithout having f irst raised this issue befor e the trial court, thus givingWe n ote that tw o o f o ur sis te r c ourt s, wh en in terpr e tin g the old ru le s o f a

pp e llate 3 p ro ce d u re , ap p l i edru l e 1 4 5 an d h e l d t h a ti f at ri al co u rt fa i l edt o p ro v i d e r ea s o n s fo r up h o l d i n g a contest to an aff

idavit, the alleg ations should be deeme d true. See V arkonyi v . Troche , 802 S.W .2d 63 , 6 5 ( Te x. Ap p. —E l Pa so 19 90 , n o w ri t) ; Cowen v. Cox , No. 01-92-01048- CV, 1993 Tex. App. L EXI S 1835, at *7 (Tex. App.—Houston [ 1st Dist.] J uly 1, 1993, n o wr i t ) (not desig nated f or publication). Howe ver, a ssuming those opinions wer e cor rec t when dec ided, not hing in the curre nt rules of a ppellate proce dure mandates such action. Rule 20.1 does not contain languag e that lea ds us to apply

the rules of

civil proce d u re or any

require ment not spelled out in rule 20.1. See Baughman v. Baughm an , 65 S.W .3d 309, 312-13 (Te x . App.—Waco 2001, pet. de nied). 3 the cour t the opportunity

to consider a

nd corr ect a

ny timeliness-relate d err ors, appe llant has not prese rved a

ny err or re lated to the untimely contest. See Tex. R. App. P
. 33.1(a) (re cord must show
c omp la int wa s c learly and sp e c if

ic a lly ra ise d b e fo re tr ia l c ourt ); Arkoma Basin Ex ploration Co. v. FMF Assocs. 1990-A, Ltd. , 249 S.W .3d 380, 387 (Tex. 2008) (“t he ca rdinal rule f

or pre serving
err or is that an objection must be clear enoug h to g ive t he trial court an opportunity to corre ct it”). We o ve rr ule a pp e lla nt’ s is su e re late d to the un tim e lin e ss o f t he c on te st. Appellant next arg ues that the trial court’s order must be reve rsed be cause it does not state the court’s rea sons f

or sustaining the contest. She cites rule 145 of the rule s of civil proce dure, wh ic h p ro vid e s th a t if

a tr ia l c ourt

fi nd s that a pa

rt y se e kin g to pr oc e e d a s an ind ig e nt c an p ay c os ts, “[r]easons for suc h a findingmust be contained in a n order .” Te x . R. Civ. P . 145(d). How ever , beca u s e this is an appeal, our

decision is g overne d not by rule 145 but by

rule 20.1 of the rules of ap p el l at e p ro ce d

u re , wh i ch p ro v i d es o n l y

t h at t h e tr i al co u rt mu s t s i gn a w ri t t en o rd er s u s t ai n i n g a contest within a set time fra me or the a lleg ati o n s o f i n d i gence are deeme d true. Te x . R. App. P. 2 0. 1( i) (4 ); see Baughm an v. Baughman , 65 S.W .3d 309, 312-13 (T ex . Ap p.—Waco 2001, pet. denied)
. Thus, the cour t did not err in fa iling to satisfy the re quirements of r

ule 145. 34 Finally , appellant a

rg ues that the alleg ations in he r af fidavit wer e neve r controve rted and that the alleg ations and testimony at the hea ring aff irmatively

demonstrated he r inability to pay
c os ts a nd , th us , th a t th e tr ia l c ourt

a bu se d it s d isc re tio n in

su sta ini ngthe c on te st. Appellant conte nds that the alleg ations in her and her husband’s affidavit wer e not controve rted at the hear ing and that the only evidenc e produc ed at the he aringfurther establishes her indige nce a

nd inability

to pay for the rec ord on appea l. I n the af fidavit, appe llant and her

husband
a ve rr e d th a t th e y

e arn e d a bo ut $ 4, 00 0 a

mon th, wi th p os sib le we a the r- rel a te d d e c re a se s to his construction income, and t hat t hey owned one vehicle w orth $10,000 and ha d $480 in their che cking
acc ount. They further stated that they had two depe ndent childre n toge ther, that she ha s two other
c hil dr e n f or wh om s he pa

y s c hil d s up po rt , a

nd tha t he ha s tw o c hil dr e n f

or wh om h e pa

y s c hil d
su pp or t. T he Mo rr ise s st a te d th a t th e y ha d a bo ut $ 4, 50 1 in

mon thl y e xpe ns e s, inc lud in g re nt, phones, child ca

re, util i t i es , child support totaling $430, student loan pa y ments, and cr edit car d pa y ment s. The y

ha ve a bo ut $ 17 1, 26 9 in

de bts , in c lud ingstu de nt l oa ns , c re dit c ard de bts , attorn ey ’s and witness fees owe d by appellant to appe llees’ attorney , and child support and soc ial
secur ity arr eae ag es. At the he ari ng , a

pp e lla nt te sti fi e d that sh e and he r hu sb and ha d se ve n pe op le in t he ir ho us e ho ld a

nd qu a lif ie d f or t h i s C o u r t ’ s pr o b on o p ilo t pr og ra

m, whic h a c c e pts pe op le wh os e inc ome falls under

175% of the federa l poverty g uidelines. Appellant has since c larified that although she
and he r h us ba nd have fi ve c hil dr e n be tw e e n th e tw o o f t he m, o nly tw o o f t he c hil dr e n li ve wi th t

he m. Ap pe lla nt e xpla ine d th a t he r h

us ba nd wa s d e a f and so the y ne e de d te xt-e na ble d c e llu lar ph on e s to
c omm un ic a te . Sh e a lso e xpla ine d th a t th e y pa id $ 30 a

mon th f or a tol l ta g so that he r h

us ba nd c ou ld5

save m o n ey on g as and spe nd less time commuting to and f rom job sites. Appellant testified that she had not soug ht a part-time job, stating that she had just had a ba by rec ently , but that her husband ha d. She sa id s he and

he r h us ba nd ha d b e e n d e nie d a loa

n fr om bank s and that he r h us ba nd ’s pa re nts
wer e unable to give them a loan. She further te stified that she and he r husband ha d cable , a video ph on e , a nd re lay se rv ic e and that tho se se rv ic e s we re imp or tant be c a us e he r hu sb and us e d th e m to
c omm un ic a te wi th hi s pare nt s. Ap pe lla nt s a id t hat sh e and

he r h us ba nd we re makin g mon thl y pay ments of $640 for the ir truck, whic h t h ey b o u ght in 2003, and that they “owe a little under $8 ,0 00 ” on

the a ve rr e d $ 10 ,0 00 va lue . Sh e te sti fi e d that the y we re be hin d on the ir tr uc k p ay me nts
. Asked whether she’d be willing to make pay ments for the r ecor d on a sche dule, she re plied that she and her husband could not aff

ord i t. Appellant’s husband testified t hat he did not believe he owed as much c hild support or social sec urity arr ear ag es as he had bee n told, but as o f t h e d at e of the hear ing, no c hang es or adjustments had been m ade. He testified that they wer e about e ight months
awa y from pay ing of f their truc k and that he spe nt about $450 a month in g as and truc k maintenanc e. At the conc lusion of the hear ing, the trial court said, “I cer tainly appre ciate that y ou have bills to pay . Ido not find that there’ s an indig enc y i ssue her e for y our ability

to pay for the
rec ord. I f [the court re porter] is willing to also g ive it at a reduc ed rate , that is her dec ision. But the Affida vit of I ndige nce is de nied for the purpose of this hearing .” As the su

pr e me c ourt

ha s e xpla ine d, “ Th e te st f or de te rm in ingind ig e nc e is straig htforwa

rd: ‘Doe s t h e record as a whole show by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e that the
a pp lic ant w ould be un abl e to pay the c os ts, or

a pa rt the re of , o r g ive se c ur ity

the re fo r, if

he re a lly wanted to a

nd made a

g ood-fa ith effor

t to do so? ’” Higg i n s v. R andall Count y Sheriff’s Office ,6

2 5 7 S
. W
. 3 d 6 8 5 , 6 8 7 (T ex . 2 0 0 8 ) ( qu o t i n g Pi nc hb ac k v . H oc k le ss , 164 S.W .2d 19, 20 (Tex. 1942)). We reviewa trial c ourt’s dec ision to sus tain a conte st to an aff idavit of indigen ce for an abuse of discretion, askingwhether the cour t’s decision wa s arbitr ary or unre asonable or made without ref ere nce to a

ny g uiding rules or principles. Few v. Few , 2 71 S.W. 3d 34 1, 34 5 ( Te x. Ap p. —E l Pa so 2008, pet. denied)
.

Ba sed on this r ecor d, althoug h we are sy mpathetic to the situation of a ppellant and he r h us ba nd , w e c ann ot h old

that th e tr ia l c ourt

c le arl y a bu se d its disc re tio n in

de te rm ini ngthat, i f the y re a lly wa nte d to , a pp e lla nt a nd he r h us ba nd c ou ld a rr ange t o p ay

fo r t he re po rt e r’ s r e c or d in
s o m e f as h i o n . Al t h o u ght h ei r b i l l s s ee m edt o b e gr ea t er th an t h ei r i n co m e a tt h e t i m e o f t h e h ea ri n g,
a pp e lla nt a nd he r h us ba nd inc lud e d in

the ir bil ls s e ve ra l no n- ne c e ssi tie s th a t the y c ou ld have c ut i f they neede d to, they

d ro v e a tr

uck with a substantial monthly pay ment, and they

spent signif

icant sums every

month on g as and truck maintenanc e. Appe llant flatly denied that they

could consider
makin g pa

y me nts on the re po rt e r’ s r e c or d, bu t he r h us ba nd te sti fi e d th a t a lth ou g h th e y ha d r e c e ntl y had fina ncial s et -b ac k s, appellant “ has ac hieved a g ood job. Things a

re star ting to g et better , but slowly .” He also testified that when they fell behind on their truck pay ment, he made “some c atchup pay ment and we shuffled f

unds the best that we c ould. ” Al t h o u gh appellant state d that her household consisted of two a dults a nd five children, she clar ified that only two of the c hildren we re living at home a

nd that she an d her husba nd wer e pay

ing monthly

child support for f

our other
c hil dr e nt o t a l i n g $ 4 3 0
. A s a p p e l l e e s n o t e i nt h e i r

l e t t e r b r i e f o na p p e a l , s e v e r a l o f

t h e M orri se s’
e xpe ns e s a

re fo r i te ms that th e y

fi nd us e fu l but that ar e no t tru ly ne c e ssi tie s, larg e ly

tho se re late d to appellant’ s husband’s dea fness. And, appellant, althoug h require d by a trial c ourt judg ment to payAl tho ug h the tr ia l c ourt did no t make fi nd ing s of fa c t or c on c lus ion s of law o r e xpla in i ts 4 ruling at the hear ing, other than to say it recog nized that appellant had many bills t o pay , appellant did not request finding s of fa ct or c onclusions of law or pr otest any lack of explanation. 7 fo r a pp e lle e s’ a tto rn e y ’s fe e s and to p ay c hil d s up po rt

to a pp e lle e s, ha s n ot ye t ma de any pa y me nts on those debts.

We cannot conc lude that no rea sonable person could have conclude d that appellant and her husband, had the y

rea lly wanted to, could have made arr ang ements to pay for the r eporte r’s
r e c o r d o u to f t h e i r $ 4 , 0 0 0 m o n t h l y p ay. See H iggins , 257 S.W .3d at 687. We can r eac h no other 4
c on c lus ion

tha n to a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s or de r s us ta ini ngthe c on te st t o a pp e lla nt’ s a ff ida vit
.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pury ear and Pember

ton Affir med Filed: Jul y

9, 2010