Summary
The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, dismissed for want of jurisdiction Stephanie Hall’s challenge to a trial court determination that she could afford court costs. The court held that Hall’s motion under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145 was untimely, even assuming the deadline was extended based on delayed notice under Rule 306a. The court also declined to construe the filing as a petition for writ of mandamus because Hall had an available but untimely remedy by appeal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Hall timely filed a motion under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145(g) challenging the August 11, 2025 indigency determination.
- Whether the December 1, 2025 temporary orders constituted a new and independently challengeable indigency determination under Rule 145.
- Whether Hall established good cause for an extension to challenge the December 1 order.
- Whether Hall's filing could be construed as a petition for writ of mandamus based on lack of notice.
Holdings
- The court lacked jurisdiction over Hall's challenge because she did not file her Rule 145 motion within the ten-day deadline or the maximum fifteen-day extension period.
- The December 1 temporary orders did not appear to constitute a new and independent indigency determination; even if they did, Hall's December 22 filing was not timely absent a Rule 145(g)(2) extension.
- Mandamus relief was unavailable because Hall had an adequate remedy by appeal that she failed to exercise timely.
Key quotations
“To challenge a ruling requiring the payment of costs under Rule 145, a party must file a motion in the appropriate appellate court within ten days of the trial court’s order being signed.” (at 3)
“Mandamus is not available if another remedy, though it would have been adequate, was not timely exercised” (at 7)
Factual background
Hall, the mother in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship, filed a sworn statement of inability to afford court costs. After an August 11, 2025 hearing, the trial court denied the statement and ordered her to pay costs by October 1. Hall's counsel asserted that he did not learn of the order until November 6, but Hall did not file her appellate challenge until December 22. The trial court's December 1 temporary orders recited the prior indigency determination, and Hall argued that the December order supplied a new basis for appellate review or mandamus relief.
Procedural history
The Bell County district court held an indigency hearing on August 11, 2025, denied Hall's statement of inability to pay costs, and ordered her to pay court costs. Hall's counsel claimed he did not learn of that order until November 6, 2025. The trial court signed temporary orders on December 1 that also recited the prior indigency determination. Hall filed her appellate motion on December 22, 2025. The court of appeals dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the Rule 145 challenge was untimely and Hall did not establish good cause for an extension or entitlement to mandamus relief.