David Hayes v. State, 12-15-00194-CV

David Hayes appealed a trial-court order that destroyed dogs and awarded costs; he filed a notice of appeal, an affidavit of indigence, and a motion for a free record under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 13.003 and Tex. R. App. P. 20.1.
The State filed a contest to Hayes’s affidavit of indigence; the trial court sustained the contest by written order.
On appeal Hayes asked this Court to overturn the trial court’s order and to direct preparation of a free reporter’s and clerk’s record.
At the contest hearing the trial judge orally stated he would not find Hayes indigent and indicated he believed an appeal on the merits would be frivolous; the judge did not make the explicit written findings required by § 13.003.
The appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion and addressed preservation: Hayes did not request that the trial court make the required findings nor did he object to their absence.
The Court concluded Hayes failed to meet statutory requirements and did not preserve error as to the required findings; the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order sustaining the contest and directed Hayes to pay or arrange payment for the records by a set deadline.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by sustaining the State's contest to Hayes’s affidavit of indigence and denying a free record	Hayes argued the contest should be overruled and a free reporter’s and clerk’s record ordered	State argued the contest was properly sustained because Hayes was not indigent and the appeal was frivolous	Court held no abuse of discretion; affirmed the order sustaining the contest because Hayes failed to secure or request the § 13.003 findings and thus failed to preserve error
Whether the trial court was required to make (and Hayes to obtain/request) the § 13.003 findings (appeal not frivolous; record necessary)	Hayes implicitly challenged denial but did not request the required findings or directly challenge the trial judge’s oral statement that the appeal was frivolous	State relied on the judge’s oral statement and the absence of requested findings; argued Hayes didn’t meet statutory prerequisites	Court held Hayes failed to preserve complaint about findings; even assuming oral finding satisfied the frivolous prong, Hayes did not address necessity of the record, so relief denied

Few v. Few, 271 S.W.3d 341 (Tex. App.–El Paso 2008) (standards for reviewing contest to affidavit of indigence and abuse-of-discretion review)
Rhodes v. Honda, 246 S.W.3d 353 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2008) (application of Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 13.003 requirements)
Kindle v. United Svcs. Auto. Ass’n, 357 S.W.3d 377 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2011) (preservation rules when required findings are not requested)
Schlapper v. Forest, 272 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. App.–Austin 2008) (failure to obtain required findings forfeits appellate complaint)
In re Doe, 78 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. 2002) (oral findings do not substitute for written findings under Tex. R. Civ. P. 296)
In the Interest of W.E.R., 669 S.W.2d 716 (Tex. 1984) (same: necessity of written findings under Rule 296)