Suzanna Eckchum A/K/A Susan Eckhert v. State, 03-15-00107-CV

Background

On January 22, 2015 the trial court entered a stalking protective order against Suzanna Eckchum. Eckchum filed a form "Affidavit of Inability to Pay Court Costs" on February 12, 2015 that left several required fields blank and did not include a sworn statement that she could not pay appellate costs.
Court Reporter Dana Dance timely filed a contest to the affidavit on February 23, 2015 asserting noncompliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1(b).
At a February 28 hearing the court reporter’s counsel stated he had emailed the contest and hearing notice to the email address Eckchum provided on her affidavit; the trial court sustained the contest.
Eckchum filed an unsworn Motion to Reconsider on March 5 and then moved in the court of appeals on March 6; she later filed an affidavit with that motion but it was not presented to the trial court before its order and was not sworn at the hearing.
The State’s response argues (1) the form "pauper’s affidavit" Eckchum filed is insufficient to invoke Rule 20.1; (2) even if invoked, the affidavit fails to include the mandatory Rule 20.1(b) information; (3) Eckchum failed to rebut a presumption she received emailed notice and the trial court permissibly shortened notice; and (4) the trial court properly sustained the contest and Eckchum should be ordered to pay appellate costs or, alternatively, the case remanded for further hearing or ordered to file a compliant affidavit.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Eckchum’s form "pauper’s affidavit" invoked Rule 20.1	The form affidavit suffices to invoke Rule 20.1 and she should be allowed to proceed	The form is not an affidavit of indigency under Rule 20.1 and contains no sworn inability-to-pay statement	Trial court sustained contest; State urges appellate denial because affidavit was insufficient
Whether affidavit complied with Rule 20.1(b) mandatory disclosures	Eckchum contends she had none of the listed assets so omission is harmless	State argues Rule 20.1(b) requires complete information (income, spouse income, property, cash, assets, loan ability, counsel arrangements) and Eckchum left required sections blank	Trial court found affidavit deficient; State argues deficiencies justified sustaining contest
Whether Eckchum received adequate notice and whether trial court properly shortened notice	Eckchum claims she had no notice until after the hearing	State points to emailed notice to address provided by Eckchum, invokes presumption of receipt for properly dispatched email, and notes Rule 21 allows shortening notice	State contends presumption unrebutted and shortening was within court’s discretion; contest heard timely
Appropriate remedy (reconsideration/remand or order to file new affidavit)	Eckchum seeks relief from sustaining contest and opportunity to proceed without advance costs	State requests denial of relief, or alternatively remand for hearing or order Eckchum to file a complete Rule 20.1 affidavit	State asks appellate court to deny motion, sustain trial court order, and require Eckchum to pay costs or to remand for compliant hearing or affidavit filing

Key Cases Cited

Donalson v. Barr, 86 S.W.3d 718 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002) (abuse-of-discretion review of indigence rulings; appellate court may uphold correct result even if for wrong reason)
Higgins v. Randall Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 257 S.W.3d 684 (Tex. 2008) (treatment of incomplete affidavit when affidavit is uncontested)
Higgins v. Randall Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 193 S.W.3d 898 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam) (courts must give reasonable time to correct affidavit defects)
Moreno v. Perez, 363 S.W.3d 725 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (analyzed extent of required 20.1(b) disclosures where contest did not challenge particulars and testimony supplemented record)
In re C.H.C., 331 S.W.3d 426 (Tex. 2011) (discussion of amended affidavits and contested v. uncontested contexts under Rule 20.1)