Opinion ID: 853267
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Sholes' Request for Appointed Counsel

Text: After the trial court entered a decree of dissolution and distributed Christine and David's marital property, David filed two motions to proceed as pauper. No determination of either appears in the record. However, confronted with such a motion, the trial court should have determined whether David was indigent and without sufficient means to litigate the dissolution action. An affirmative finding on both questions would result in a statutory mandate that counsel be appointed to David. It is for the trial court to determine whether David has a colorable bona fide dispute over issues warranting the expense of counsel. At that point, if no pro bono service provider is available, the trial court would have to consider whether it has the power, under Trial Rule 60.5, to order payment of counsel, or whether the statutory mandate of section 34-10-1-2 fails in light of overriding considerations that would prevent expenditure of public funds for appointed counsel. Therefore, we remand with instructions (1) to vacate all proceedings conducted after David's February 19, 1999 Motion to Proceed as Pauper, (2) determine whether David is indigent and without sufficient means, and (3) if so, determine whether counsel may be appointed consistent with Trial Rule 60.5.