Court Opinion

ID: 9396575
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 10:09:07.887403+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:17.962840
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                      NO. 03-23-00075-CV

                              Christie Turner Schultz, Appellant

                                                 v.

                                   Derrick Schultz, Appellee

              FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
   NO. D-1-FM-17-004740, THE HONORABLE JESSICA MANGRUM, JUDGE PRESIDING

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

               Appellant Christie Turner Schultz filed a notice of appeal from a final order in a

suit to modify the parent-child relationship, which has been docketed in this Court as cause

number 03-22-00762-CV. That same day, Schultz filed a statement of inability to pay court

costs. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145(b); see also Tex. R. App. P. 20.1 (providing procedure for

establishing inability to pay court costs on appeal). After the court reporter notified Schultz that

she would not provide the reporter’s record without payment, Schultz filed a “petition for

indigency status” in the trial court, and the matter was set for an evidentiary hearing. See Tex. R.

Civ. P. 145(e). Following the hearing, on January 31, 2023, the trial court signed an order

denying Schultz’s “petition for indigency status” and requiring her to pay court costs. See id.

R. 145(f)(1) ( oral evidentiary hearing required). The trial court also issued detailed findings as
to Schultz’s income and expenses and concluded that she is “not indigent” and “can afford to pay

all costs of court.” See id. R. 145(f)(2) (detailed findings required).

                Schultz has filed a motion challenging the trial court’s January 31, 2023 order

sustaining the challenge to her statement of inability to afford payment of court costs. See id.

R. 145(g). Having reviewed the motion and the record, we cannot conclude that the trial court’s

order constitutes an abuse of discretion. See Basaldua v. Hadden, 298 S.W.3d 238, 241 (Tex.

App.—San Antonio 2009, no pet.) (reviewing trial court’s order sustaining contest to indigency

under abuse-of-discretion standard); see also Thienan Bui v. Beck & Co. Real Estate Servs., Inc.,

No. 03-16-00882-CV, 2017 WL 279615, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 19, 2017, no pet.)

(mem. op.) (per curiam) (same). Accordingly, we deny Schultz’s motion. See Tex. R. Civ.

P. 145(g)(4).

Before Justices Baker, Smith, and Jones*

Filed: May 18, 2023
*
 Before J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice (Retired), Third Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.
See Tex. Gov’t Code § 74.003(b).

                                                  2