Christopher M. Perricone v. Katie Beth Perricone, Et Al., 11-25-00213-CV

Background

Christopher M. Perricone sued dozens of defendants and filed a Statement of Inability to Afford Court Costs. 1
Rhett Warren, one of the named defendants, filed a contested motion alleging Perricone’s indigence statement was materially false. 2
After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court sustained Warren’s contest, denied Perricone’s request to proceed without costs, and made detailed findings of falsity and non-indigency. 3
The case arose from the parties’ divorce and later custody-modification litigation, with numerous related filings and appeals. 4
At the hearing, Warren presented declarations and records suggesting omitted assets, unpaid child support, higher income, and inaccurate expense claims. 5
The court of appeals affirmed, holding Perricone failed to prove indigency and waived his constitutional complaints. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Warren have standing to contest Perricone’s statement? 7	Perricone said Warren lacked standing.	Warren was a party defendant and could contest the statement.	Warren had standing because he was a party to the suit. 8
Was Warren’s contest sufficiently sworn under Rule 145? 9	Perricone argued Warren’s filings were procedurally defective and unsworn.	Warren’s declaration and exhibits supplied sworn evidence of falsity.	The contest substantially complied and supported a hearing. 10
Was the evidence sufficient to sustain the contest and deny indigence? 11	Perricone claimed the evidence did not show he could pay costs.	Warren showed misstatements, omitted assets, and sufficient income.	The trial court did not abuse its discretion; Perricone failed to prove indigency. 12
Were Perricone’s constitutional complaints preserved? 13	Perricone challenged Rule 145 and alleged due-process and access-to-courts violations.	The complaints were not ruled on and thus were waived.	The constitutional issues were not preserved for review. 14

Key Cases Cited

Higgins v. Randall County Sheriff’s Office, 257 S.W.3d 684 (Tex. 2008) (indigency standard and factors trial courts may consider 15)
Pinchback v. Hockless, 164 S.W.2d 19 (Tex. Comm’n App. 1942) (indigency asks whether costs can be paid in good faith 16)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (trial court is sole judge of credibility and weight of evidence 17)
In re Estate of Turner, 265 S.W.3d 709 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2008) (factfinder may resolve evidentiary inconsistencies 18)
Strickland v. iHeartmedia, Inc., 668 S.W.3d 34 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2022) (abuse-of-discretion review for contests to indigence affidavits 19)
Emerson v. Holly Lake Ranch Ass’n, 603 S.W.3d 172 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2020) (same abuse-of-discretion standard applies 20)
Bocquet v. Herring, 972 S.W.2d 19 (Tex. 1998) (defines abuse of discretion as arbitrary or unreasonable action 21)
Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) (same abuse-of-discretion definition 22)
Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) (no abuse if evidence reasonably supports the ruling or is conflicting 23)
Shields Ltd. P’ship v. Bradberry, 526 S.W.3d 471 (Tex. 2017) (legal-sufficiency standard when appellant bears burden of proof 24)
Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (factual-sufficiency standard for burden-bearing party 25)
Rodgers v. Mitchell, 83 S.W.3d 815 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002) (voluntary unemployment may be considered in indigency analysis 26)
Wallgren v. Martin, 700 S.W.2d 28 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1985) (one who lives on others’ generosity need not receive free court services 27)
Iliff v. Iliff, 339 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2011) (earning potential may matter when a person is intentionally underemployed 28)
In re L.M.I., 119 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. 2003) (constitutional complaints are waived if not preserved in the trial court 29)
Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181 (Tex. 1978) (pro se litigants are held to the same procedural standards as attorneys 30)
Barrientos v. Barrientos, 675 S.W.3d 399 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2023) (pro se parties must comply with applicable rules 31)
Aaron v. Fisher, 645 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2022) (same rule for pro se litigants 32)