Dale Patrick Koehne v. Kaleigh Michelle Koehne
01-17-00016-CV
| Tex. App. | Jun 1, 2017Background
- Dale P. Koehne appealed orders finding him in contempt and revoking suspension of county-jail commitment; he filed a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs after filing notice of appeal.
- Koehne requested reporter’s records for multiple hearings; the court reporter filed contests to his indigence claim, and the trial court sustained the contest without making detailed findings initially.
- The appellate court requested detailed findings under Tex. R. Civ. P. 145(f)(6); the trial court later filed findings concluding Koehne was not indigent based largely on his August 2016 financial situation and payments made by his attorney.
- Evidence in the record showed Koehne had been unemployed since February 2016 (except short-term work), living with parents, owing substantial debts (≈ $22,000), lacked current income, was jailed after December 16, 2016, and had no readily available assets to pay costs.
- The trial court found Koehne’s Statement deficient for not stating ability to pay a portion of costs and relied on earlier income and alleged ability to borrow; the appellate court examined whether that determination was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly sustained reporter’s contest to Koehne’s Statement of Inability and found him able to pay costs | Koehne: his Statement (supreme-court form) and testimony show current inability to pay; no rebuttal evidence | Reporter/trial court: facts showed prior employment, attorney paid reporter for records, and other means existed to pay or borrow | Reversed — trial court abused discretion; Koehne shown unable to pay and Statement was proper |
| Whether Statement of Inability must state the portion of costs declarant can afford | Koehne: form approved by Supreme Court sufficient; no rule requires partial-payment statement | Trial court: found form deficient for not stating ability to pay a portion of costs | Reversed — rules do not require declarant to state ability to pay a portion; trial court erred |
| Whether trial court properly relied on August 2016 finances instead of current finances | Koehne: trial court must assess current financial condition supporting indigence claim | Trial court: relied on testimony about August 2016 employment and payments to conclude ability to pay | Reversed — focusing on outdated employment was arbitrary; court must consider current ability |
| Whether trial court properly found Koehne could borrow or otherwise obtain funds to pay costs | Koehne: family could not continue lending; truck had little value and a lien; attorney-paid funds origin unknown | Trial court: noted loans from family and possibility of loans using truck collateral; attorney paid reporter | Reversed — record does not support finding Koehne could borrow; evidence showed inability to raise funds |
Key Cases Cited
- Arevalo v. Millan, 983 S.W.2d 803 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998) (abuse-of-discretion standard reviewing indigence determinations)
- In re Sosa, 980 S.W.2d 814 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998) (trial court may not disregard unrebutted evidence of inability to pay)
- Sansom v. Sprinkle, 799 S.W.2d 776 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1990) (trial court must withdraw order sustaining contest where appellant shows indigence and contest unrebutted)