in the Interest of K.V.K, a Child
05-15-00547-CV
| Tex. App. | Jun 4, 2015Background
- Appellant filed an affidavit of indigence to proceed on appeal without advance payment of costs; appellee contested and the trial court sustained the contest.
- Appellant is a single mother of two, unemployed, receives $851/month child support and $511/month in food stamps, and has documentation corroborating public assistance.
- Monthly non-debt expenses average $2,350–$2,450; she is frequently unable to make all payments and makes no payments on substantial student-loan and credit-card debt.
- Assets are limited to a house, a 2004 Toyota Prius, furnishings, and personal effects; friends/ex-boyfriend have given her significant financial help.
- Evidence at the contest included testimony about $18,000 in insurance proceeds for roof damage; testimony conflicted about whether proceeds were spent on repairs or retained to repay informal loans.
- The trial court gave no explanation for sustaining the contest; on appeal the sole dispositive issue was whether appellant’s proof of public assistance satisfied the indigence standard.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Appellee's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant met burden to prove indigence under Tex. R. App. P. 20.1 | Appellant argued her receipt of public assistance (food stamps, child support) and her financial obligations show she cannot pay appeal costs | Appellee argued evidence (testimony about insurance proceeds) showed appellant had funds available to pay costs | Court held appellant proved indigence; receipt of public assistance sufficed and contest should not have been sustained |
| Whether trial court could credit testimony that insurance proceeds made funds available | Appellant argued no evidence showed proceeds were available at filing or now | Appellee relied on friend/ex-boyfriend testimony alleging proceeds remained and were used to repay others | Court held testimony did not prove proceeds were available; absence of rebuttal evidence meant trial court abused discretion in sustaining contest |
| Standard of review for contest to affidavit of indigence | Appellant urged reversal where record shows dependence on public assistance | Appellee urged deference to trial court credibility findings | Court applied abuse-of-discretion standard but found no evidence rebutted public-assistance proof and reversed |
| Burden to overcome showing of public assistance | Appellant maintained that receiving public benefits is prima facie proof of inability to pay | Appellee argued enough contrary evidence existed to overcome prima facie showing | Court held opponent must show funds available or that applicant is not dependent on assistance; appellee failed to do so |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.H.C., 331 S.W.3d 426 (Tex. 2011) (indigence test requires showing inability to pay costs by preponderance)
- Higgins v. Randall Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 257 S.W.3d 684 (Tex. 2008) (indigence standard and proof discussed)
- Griffin Indus., Inc. v. Thirteenth Court of Appeals, 934 S.W.2d 349 (Tex. 1996) (dependency on public assistance is prima facie evidence of inability to pay costs)
- Goffney v. Lowry, 554 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. 1977) (dependence on public welfare programs constitutes prima facie evidence of inability to pay court costs)
- Prince v. Am. Bank of Tex., 359 S.W.3d 380 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard and deference to credibility findings)
- Basaldua v. Hadden, 298 S.W.3d 238 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009) (discussing review standard for indigence contests)
- Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) (appellate reversal standard when trial court departs from guiding rules or acts arbitrarily)