### NUM BER 1 3-09 -004 75-CV



## C O U R T O F AP P E AL S

T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS

C O R P U S C H R I S T I

- 

## E D I N B U R G

DEA N CORY RO BLIN, A ppell ant,

v.

DEBORA H SUS A N BRI GGS
, A ppell ee.

On a ppeal fr om the County Court a t La w No. 1 of M ontgomery

County
, Texas.



## M E M O R AN D U M O P I N I O N

Before Chi ef Justi ce Val dez and Just ic es Rodriguez a nd Vel a M emor andum O pini on by Chi ef Justi ce Val dez

App ellant

, Dean Cory Roblin, advancing pro se, app eals f ro m a t ria l court orde r

susta ining a cont est to his af f idavit of indigence f iled by app ellee, Debo rah Susa n Brigg s.

By one issue, app ellant asserts tha t the trial court abu sed its discretion in d e n yin g his

request f or ind igent sta tus. W e a f f irm.I. B A C K G R O U N D

Accordin g to app ellant

, he and app ellee w ere ma rried in Decem ber 200 4. A t an

unsp ecif ied time in 200 9, app ellant f iled a pet ition f or divorce. On May 14, 200 9, the trial

court cond uct e d a hea ring on the divorce pet ition, and on May 28, 200 9, the trial court

signed the f inal divorce decre e, awarding app e ll ant v arious piece s of perso nal prop erty,

includin g th ree cars, an eight-person spa, $12 ,00 0 to be paid by a ppe llee, and rig hts to 1

his pe rsona l retirem ent acco unt s an d lif e insu rance proce eds. 2

On June 17, 200 9, app ellant f iled a pro se not ice of a p p e a l, challen ging the f inal

divorce decre e. Also on June 17 , 20 09, app ellant f iled an af f idavit o f indigence

, statin g 3

tha t he: (1) earn ed $1, 506 per mo nth in incom e as a gov ernm ent al em ployee f or

Montgo m e ry Co u n t y ; (2) w as owed $12 ,00 0 f rom app ellee, but she f ailed to ma ke the 4

payme nt; (3) had $1, 690 in m o n t h ly obligation s; (4) owned one car—a 200 2 Mitsubishi

T h e $ 1 2

, 0 0 0 w a s p a i d b y a p p e l l e e t o a p p e l l a n t i n e x c h a n g e f o r r i g h t s t o t h e c o u p l e ’ s h o u s e i n 1
C o n r o e , T e x a s

. T h e a m o u n t t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r d e r e d a p p e l l e e t o p a y a p p e l l a n t r e p r e s e n t e d a p p e l l a n t ’ s f i f t y

p e r c e n t s h a r e i n t h e e q u i t y o f t h e h o u s e

.

T h e r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e m i r r o r e d a m e d i a t e d s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t t h a t t h e 2

p a r t i e s e n t e r e d i n t o p r i o r t o t h e M a y 1 4

, 2 0 0 9 h e a r i n g

.

I n a d d i t i o n t o t h i s a p p e a l

, a p p e l l a n t h a s f i l e d f o u r o t h e r n o t i c e s o f a p p e a l c o m p l a i n i n g a b o u t v a r i o u s 3

a c t i o n s t a k e n b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t a n d o p p o s i n g c o u n s e l i n t h e u n d e r l y i n g m e d i a t i o n a n d d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g s

. A p p e l l a n t h a s f i l e d o n e b r i e f a d d r e s s i n g a l l o f h i s i s s u e s i n e a c h o f t h e f i v e a p p e a l s h e h a s f i l e d

. I n h i s

a p p e l l a t e b r i e f

, a p p e l l a n t d e t a i l s h i s a p p e a l s a s f o l l o w s :

1

. I n h i s f i r s t a p p e a l f i l e d o n J u n e 1 7

, 2 0 0 9

, a p p e l l a n t c o m p l a i n s a b o u t t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s r e f u s a l t o

a l l o w h i m “ t o a d d a l i s t o f c r e d i t / d e b i t c a r d s t o t h e F i n a l [ D i v o r c e ] D e c r e e ” ;

2

. I n h i s s e c o n d a p p e a l f i l e d o n J u l y 2 7

, 2 0 0 9

, a p p e l l a n t c o m p l a i n s a b o u t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n

r e g a r d i n g h i s i n d i g e n t s t a t u s ;

3

. I n h i s t h i r d a p p e a l f i l e d o n S e p t e m b e r 1 0

, 2 0 0 9

, a p p e l l a n t c o m p l a i n s a b o u t t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s r e f u s a l t o r e c u s e h i m s e l f f r o m a p p e l l a n t ’ s d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g s ;

4

. I n h i s f o u r t h a p p e a l f i l e d o n O c t o b e r 2

, 2 0 0 9

, a p p e l l a n t c o m p l a i n s a b o u t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s j u s t a n d

r i g h t d i v i s i o n o f t h e m a r i t a l p r o p e r t y ; a n d

5

. I n h i s f i f t h a p p e a l f i l e d o n N o v e m b e r 2 5

, 2 0 0 9

, a p p e l l a n t c o m p l a i n s a b o u t o t h e r a c t i o n s t a k e n b y t h e t r i a l j u d g e a n d o p p o s i n g c o u n s e l d u r i n g a p p e l l a n t ’ s d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g s

.

I n h e r c o n t e s t t o a p p e l l a n t ’ s a f f i d a v i t o f i n d i g e n c e , a p p e l l e e a l l e g e d

, a m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t 4

a p p e l l a n t i s e m p l o y e d b y t h e O f f i c e o f t h e D i s t r i c t C l e r k i n M o n t g o m e r y C o u n t y

. 2Galan t of unkn own v alue —and som e v arious piece s of perso nal prop erty; and (5) did not

own any stocks

, b o n d s , o r re al prop erty. See T E X

. C I V

. P R A C

. & R E M

. C O D E A N N

. §

13. 003 (a)(2)(A) (Verno n 2 0 0 2 ) (s tatin g tha t an app ellant is ent itled to a f ree record on

app eal if he is dee me d indigent and the app eal is not f riv olou s). On Ju n e 2 2

, 200 9,

app ellee f iled a respo nse and cont est to a p p e ll a n t ’s af f idavit of indigence

. In her f iling,

app ellee asserte d tha t app ellant f ailed to m ent ion in his ind igence a f f idavit that he ha s a

retirem ent accou nt v alue d at app rox ima tely $15 ,00 0 and tha t he o wn s tw o oth er

v ehicles—a 197 4 Mercury Cougar and a 1 9 79 Ford pickup truck—awarded to app ellant

in the divorce decre e. App ellant f iled a respo nse to app ellee’s cont est and not ed, am ong

oth er things, tha t he also has a $10 ,00 0 life insuran ce policy f u n d e d by Montgom ery

Coun ty; his tota l mo nth ly ex pen ses a re $1 ,80 0 p er m ont h; a nd tha t his a nnu al inco me is

abo ut $22 ,00 0, w hich h e b e li e ve s “w ould possib ly qualif y me f or f ood stam ps and oth er

pub lic assistan ce.” See

, e.g ., Griffin Ind us., Inc. v. Hono rable Thirteen th Court of App eals

, 5

934 S.W .2d 349

, 351 (Te x

. 199 6) (orig

. proce edin g) (st ating tha t an app licant me ets his

burd en of

proo f at the he aring on the con test to t he af f idavit o f inab ility to p ay costs if he

proves tha t he de pen ds o n p ublic a ssistance ) (citing Goff ney v. Lo wry , 55 4 S .W .2d 15 7,

159 -60 (T ex. 197 7)). Ap pellan t sub sequen tly f iled an am end ed af f idavit o f indigence on

June 30 , 20 09, listing in greater d eta il his f inan cial situa tion.

On July 1, 200 9, the trial court cond ucte d a hea ring o n a p pellee ’s cont est to

app ellant ’s indigence af f idavit. At the con clusion of the hea ring, the trial cou rt susta ined

app ellee’s cont est and den ied app ellan t ’s re qu e st f or indigence statu s. T his app eal

A t n o p o i n t i n t h i s c a s e h a s a p p e l l a n t d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t h e r e l i e s o n p u b l i c a s s i s t a n c e

. H e c l a i m e d 5

a t t h e J u l y 1

, 2 0 0 9 h e a r i n g o n a p p e l l e e ’ s c o n t e s t t h a t h e s o m e t i m e s g o e s “ t o t h e f o o d b a n k

. ” 3f ollowed. 6

II. S T A N D A R D O F R E V I E W A N D A P P L I C A B L E L A W

Gen erally

, a party ma y proce ed on app eal w ithou t advance payme nt of costs if (1)

he f iles an af

f idavit of indigence in com pliance w ith ru le 2 0

. 1 o f the T exas Rules of

App ell a t e P ro c e d u re, (2) his claim of indigence is not cont este d or any cont est is not

susta ined

, and (3) a time ly not ice of app eal is f iled. See T E X

. R. A P P

. P. 20. 1(a); see also

Kast ner v. Martin & Drough t, P.C. , No. 04-0 8-00 779 -CV, 2009 T ex. App . LEXIS 153 4, at

**2-3 (Te x

. A p p.– San Ant onio Mar. 11, 200 9, pet

. den ied) (mem

. op. ). T he af f idavit of

indigence mu st iden tif

y the party f iling it and state the am oun t of costs, if any, the party can

pay. T E X

. R. A P P

. P. 20. 1(a)(2). T he af f idavit mu st also cont ain the inf orma tion ma nda ted

by rule 20. 1(b), w hich requires th e party claimin g indigence to provide det ailed f inan cial

inf orma tion. Id. at R. 20. 1(b). T he trial court clerk, t h e court repo rter, or any party ma y

challen ge the claim of indigence by f iling a cont est t o th e a f f idavit. Id. at R. 20 .1(e). If a

cont est is f iled, the party w ho f iled the af f idavit mu st prove the allegation s cont aine d in the

af f idavit. Id. at R. 20 .1(g).

T he test f or det ermin ing indigence in the trial court is w het her the app licant shows

by a prep ond eran ce o f

the evidence tha t he w ould be una ble to pay the app ellate costs,

or a part t h e re o f

, even “‘if he really w ant ed to and ma de a good f aith ef f ort to do so[.] ’”

Higgins v. Rand all Coun ty She riff’ s Office

, 257 S.W .3d 684

, 686 (Te x

. 200 8) (q uot ing

Pinch back v. Hockless

, 139 T ex. 536

, 164 S.W .2d 19, 20 (194 2)); see Griffin Ind us., Inc.

,

934 S.W .2d at 351 ; see also Kast ner , 200 9 T ex. App

. LEXIS 153 4, at *3

. W here a trial

c o urt susta ins a cont est, w e rev iew tha t det ermin ation f or an abu se of discretio n

. S e e

Rodg ers v. Mitchell

, 83 S.W .3d 815

, 818 (Te x

. App .–T exarkana 200 2, no pet .); In re Sm ith

,

A l l o f a p p e l l a n t ’ s a p p e a l s w e r e t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h i s C o u r t f r o m t h e N i n t h C o u r t o f A p p e a l s p u r s u a n t 6
t o a d o c k e t

- e q u a l i z a t i o n o r d e r i s s u e d b y t h e T e x a s S u p r e m e C o u r t

. S e e T E X

. G O V ’ T C O D E A N N

. § 7 3

. 0 0 1 ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 5 )

. 470 S.W .3d 167

, 168 (Te x

. App .–S an Ant onio 200 1, no pet .); Arevalo v. Mill an , 983 S.W .2d

803

, 804 (Te x

. App .–Hou ston [1st Dist.] 199 8, no pet .); see also Kast ner , 200 9 T ex. App

.

LEXIS 153 4, at **3-4; Kast ner v. Tex. Bd. of Law Examiners

, No. 03-0 8-00 515 -CV, 200 9

T ex. App

. LEXIS 638 1, at *5 (Te x

. App .–A ustin Aug. 12, 200 9, no pet .) (mem

. op. ); but see

Bau ghman v. Bau ghma n , 6 5 S.W .3d 309

, 316 n.5 (Te x

. App .–W aco 200 1, pet

. den ied)

(holdin g tha t the stan dard s f or rev iew ing t h e s u f f icie ncy of evidence shou ld be used to

rev iew a trial c o u rt ’s ru ling on indigence ). A trial court abu ses its discretion w hen its

decision is arbitrary, unre ason able

, or w ithou t ref eren ce to any gui d in g ru le s or legal

principles. See K-Mart Corp. v. Hone ycutt

, 24 S.W .3d 3 5 7

, 3 6 0 (Te x

. 200 0); see also

Bocq uet v. Herring , 97 2 S .W .2d 19 , 21 (Te x . 19 98).

III. A N A L Y S I S

In his sole issue, app ellant cont end s tha t t he trial court abu sed its discretion in

susta ining app ellee’s cont est to his aff idavit of i ndigence

. Spe cif ically

, app ellant

, w ithou t

citing aut hority f o r h is argume nt, asserts tha t the trial court abu sed its discretion by

consid ering app ellant ’s gr oss incom e, rathe r tha n n e t incom e, to det ermin e indigence

. App ellee has not f iled a brief in th is ma tter.

At the July 1, 200 9 hea rin g, the trial court hea rd argume nts f rom app ellant and

app ellee. A p p e ll a n t a d m itted tha t he did not have to pay rent anymo re and tha t his

“med ical expense s are prett y high.” W hen asked w het her he had bills o r o the r

docu me nta tion to esta blish his mo nth ly incom e and expense s, app ellant state d tha t he did

not have such docu me nt a t io n at the hea ring but tha t it w as at hom e. App ellant insisted

t h a t t h e I nte rnal Revenue Service inf orme d him tha t his incom e level w as $22 ,00 0;

howev er, he w as initially una ble to provide the trial court w ith docu me nta tion regarding his

true incom e level. Giv en his inab ility to esta blish his incom e level, app ellant w as instructe d

5by the trial c o u rt to obt ain docu me nta tion f rom the coun ty regarding his incom e level.

Coun ty records rev eale d tha t app ellant ma kes $ 2 7

, 3 4 3

. 66 in gr oss incom e as a dep uty

district clerk, o r Clerk II, f or Mont gome ry Coun ty. Appellan t also ad mitt ed tha t he pa w ns

things to supp lem ent his incom e and tha t, of the things awarded to him in the divorce, he

has not tried to sell any of tho se asset s to secure add itiona l incom e beca use the asset s

are “use d.” 7

W ith resp ect t o a ppe llant’s ind igence sta tus, the f ollowi ng exchange o ccurred:

Q [Cou nsel f or Ap pellee ]: By way of y our recen t am en d m e n t h e re to y our pau per’s oat h, w hat y ou’re saying

, in essen ce, is tha t you’re no t ind igent; is th at co rrect?

A [A ppe llant]: T hat ’s true, I’m no t indigent. I have a job [,] a nd I am f ully em ployed and I ma ke [$]1 [,]6 68 net as it asks f or, n ot gross a m ont h.

Q: Okay. So, y ou’re not claimin g indigence and y ou
ma de tha t clea r in your—

A: T hat ’s correct. T hat ’s correct.

Q: —am end ed respo nse, et cete ra, e t cet era?

A: And it doe sn’t say indigent on here

, it says
am end ed af

f idavit of i nab ility to pay cost[s]

. I’m simp ly saying I’m una ble to pay costs at this time due to my current mo nth ly ob lig ation [s].

Lat er, app ellant recan ted his prior testim ony and state d tha t he is indigent beca use “I have

no mo ney.”

At the conclu sion of t h e h e a rin g, the trial court susta ined app ellee’s cont est and

den ied app ellant indigence statu s. On app eal, a p p e ll a nt has not cited to portio ns of the

record or aut hority supp orting his cont ent ion tha t the trial court abu sed its discretion

. See

T E X

. R. A P P

. P. 38. 1(i). Alt hou gh app ellate courts liberally const rue brief s by pro se

A p p e l l a n t l a t e r a d m i t t e d t h a t h e d o e s h a v e “ s o m e t h i n g o n p a w n r i g h t n o w ” t h a t p r e s u m a b l y w o u l d 7

r e s u l t i n a p p e l l a n t e a r n i n g s u p p l e m e n t a l i n c o m e

. 6litig ant s, w e mu st hold the m to the sam e stan dard s as licensed atto rneys and require the m

to com ply w ith a ll a p p licable law s and rules of proce dure

. See T E X

. R. A P P

. P. 38. 9;

Ste rner v. Maratho n Oil Co.

, 767

, S.W .2d 686

, 690 (Te x

. 198 9); Green v. Kap osta

, 152

S.W .3d 839, 841 ( T ex. App .–Dallas 200 5, no pet .); see also Siddiq ui v. Sidd iqui , No. 14-

07-0 023 5-CV, 200 9 T ex. App .14 43, at *4 (Te x

. App .–Hou s t o n [14 th Dist.] Mar. 3, 200 9,

pet

. den ied) (m e m

. o p

. ) (“W hile w e have com passio n f or the plight of the pro se litig ant

atte mp ting to f ollow the rules of legal proce dure and subst ant iv e la ws, a nd the ref ore

const rue pro se plea dings and br ie f s li bera lly

, w e mu st still hold app ellant to the sam e

stan dard as a licensed atto rney, requiring tha t he f ollow tho se sam e rules and l aws

. . . .

T o do oth erw ise w ould giv e a pro se litig ant an unf air advanta ge over a litig ant represe nte d

by coun sel.”). W hen a party f ails to cite to the record or to lega l a u t h o ri t y in the ir brief

,

not hing is prese nte d f or rev iew

. See Repu blic Unde rwriters Ins. Co. v. Mex-Tex, Inc.

, 150

S.W .3d 423

, 427 (Te x

. 200 4); see also John son v. Ci t y of Dallas

, No. 05-0 9-00 365 -CV,

201 0 T ex. App . LE XIS 466 8, at *2 ( T ex. App .–Dallas June 22, 2010 , no pet.) (mem . op .)

(“Althou gh w e mu st interp ret this requireme nt [T exas Rule of App ellate Proced ure 38. 1(i)]

liberally

, an issue not supp orted by aut hority is w aived.”); McCray v. Flores

, No. 09-0 3-07 6-

CV, 200 3 T ex. App

. LEX I S 3 551

, at **2-3 (Te x

. App .–B eau mo nt Apr. 24, 200 3, no pet .)

(mem

. op. ) (“W e mu st const rue the Rules of App ellate Proced ure ‘reason ably, y et liberally

,

so th at t he rig ht to app eal is not lost by im posin g requirem ent s no t ab solute ly ne cessary

to ef f ect the purp ose of a rule.’”) (q uot ing V e rb u rg t v. Dorner

, 959 S.W .2d 615

, 616 -17

(Te x

. 199 7)). T here f ore, beca use app ellant ’s brief f ails to c o m p ly wit h rule 38. 1 of the

T exas Rules of

Appellat e Procedu re, his issue is inad equate ly bri ef ed. See T E X

. R. A P P

.

P. 38. 1(i).

How ever, assum ing tha t he had ade quately b rief ed his issue on app eal, w e

7conclu de tha t the re is not hing in the record bef ore us, besid es app ellant ’s bald assertio ns

and allegation s, dem onst rating tha t app e ll ant satisf ied his burd en of proving indigence

.

See H iggins , 257 S.W .3d at 686 ; Griffin Indu s., Inc. , 934 S.W .2d at 351 ; Pinch back , 164

S.W .2d at 20; see also Kast ner , 200 9 T ex. App

. LEXIS 153 4, at *3. App ellant is gainf ully

em ployed b y

Mont gome ry

Coun ty, earn ing $27 ,34 3.6 6 in gr oss incom e per y ear, and he

has not provided suf

f icient evidence dem onst rating his mo nth ly obligation s. Moreover, the

record d o e s not cont ain docu me nta tion esta blishing app ellant ’s net incom e per y ear.

Base d on the f oregoing, w e cann ot say tha t app ellant susta ined his burd en in proving

indigence ; theref ore, he is not entitled to a f ree reco rd on ap pea l. See T E X

. C I V

. P R A C

. &

R E M

. C O D E A N N

. § 13. 003 ; Higgins

, 257 S.W .3d at 686 ; Griffin Ind us., Inc.

, 934 S.W .2d at

351 ; Pinch back

, 164 S.W .2d at 20; see also Kast ner , 200 9 T ex. App

. LEXIS 153 4, at *3.

Giv en this, w e conclu de tha t t h e t ri a l c o urt did not abu se its discretion in susta ining

app e ll e e ’s c ont est and den y ing a ppe llant indigence statu s. See Rodg ers , 83 S.W .3d at

818 ; In re Sm ith

, 70 S.W .3d at 168 ; Arevalo

, 983 S.W .2d at 804 ; see also Kast ner , 200 9

T ex. App

. LEXIS 153 4, at **3-4; Tex. Bd. of Law Examiners

, 200 9 T ex. App

. LEXIS 638 1,

at * 5. Accordin gly , we overr ule a ppe llant’s so le issue

.

IV. C O N C L U S I O N

Havi ng overruled ap pellan t’s sole issue, w e a f f irm th e trial co urt’s jud gmen t.

ROGEL IO V ALDEZ Chief Justice

Deliv ered an d f iled th e 28t h d ay of

Octo ber, 201 0.

8