Court Opinion

ID: 9554481
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-09 07:08:14.219753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:34:31.500856
License: Public Domain

DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 1, 2023

                                    S  In The
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                No. 05-23-00577-CV

                  IN THE INTEREST OF V.I.P.M., A CHILD

               On Appeal from the 330th Judicial District Court
                            Dallas County, Texas
                   Trial Court Cause No. DF-13-02616-Y

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
      Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Pedersen, III, and Justice Goldstein
                         Opinion by Chief Justice Burns
      This appeal challenges the trial court’s interlocutory order directing appellant

to pay part of the fees of an amicus attorney appointed for the child pursuant to Texas

Family Code section 107.021. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.021. Under well-

settled law, an appeal from an interlocutory order may only be taken if authorized

by statute. See Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992).

Section 107.021 does not authorize an appeal, and no other statute does either. See

FAM. § 107.21; In re Villanueva, 292 S.W.3d 236, 246 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009,

orig. proceeding). However, in his docketing statement and in a jurisdictional letter

brief filed at our direction, appellant, who filed in the trial court a statement of
inability to afford payment of court costs, asserts we have jurisdiction under Texas

Rule of Civil Procedure 145. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 145 (concerning payment of costs

when party files statement of inability to pay). We disagree.

        Under Rule 145, unless certain procedural requirements are satisfied, a trial

court is prohibited from ordering a party to pay costs, including fees for court

appointed professionals, when that party has filed a statement of inability to pay

costs. See id. The rule authorizes an interlocutory appeal from an order requiring

the party to pay costs, but the order must be issued “under this rule.” See id.

145(g)(1) (emphasis added). The order here was issued pursuant to section 107.021,

not rule 145.1

        Because an interlocutory appeal from an order appointing an amicus attorney

under section 107.021 is not authorized, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(a); Villanueva, 292 S.W.3d at 246.

                                                        /Robert D. Burns, III/
                                                        ROBERT D. BURNS, III
                                                        CHIEF JUSTICE
230577F.P05

    1
      In his letter brief, appellant cites to In re A.M., 557 S.W.3d 607 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2016, no pet.)
and In re Villanueva, 292 S.W.3d 236 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009, orig. proceeding) in support of his
argument that rule 145 authorizes the appeal. A.M., however, was an appeal from an order under rule 145–
an order sustaining a contest to appellant’s statement of inability to afford costs and finding appellant able
to pay costs. See In re A.M., 292 S.W.3d at 608. The appellate court in Villanueva granted a petition for
writ of mandamus; that case was not an interlocutory appeal. In re Villanueva, 292 S.W.3d at 246. In that
case, the trial court appointed an attorney ad litem and ordered appellant, who filed an affidavit of inability
to pay costs, to pay a portion of the associated fees. Id.
                                                    –2–
                                   S
                          Court of Appeals
                   Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF V.I.P.M., A             On Appeal from the 330th Judicial
CHILD                                      District Court, Dallas County, Texas
                                           Trial Court Cause No. DF-13-02616-
No. 05-23-00577-CV                         Y.
                                           Opinion delivered by Chief Justice
                                           Burns, Justices Pedersen, III and
                                           Goldstein participating.

     In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered August 1, 2023.

                                     –3–