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

Appellant Suzanna Eckchum received a stalking protective order after a January 16, 2015 hearing and filed a timely appeal on February 12, 2015.
On February 12, 2015 Eckchum filed a verified Affidavit of Indigency stating she is unemployed, disabled (receiving Social Security/Medicare), receives SNAP benefits, has no valuable property (lives in rented motor home, owns an unreliable 1993 Honda), and cannot pay appellate costs.
Court Reporter Dana Dance timely filed a contest to the affidavit (Feb. 23, 2015), challenging completeness regarding income, personal property, and cash.
The trial court held a contest hearing on February 25, 2015 and sustained the contest; Appellant contends she received no actual notice of that hearing until after it occurred.
Appellant moved in the Third Court of Appeals to challenge the trial court order sustaining the contest, arguing (1) the record as a whole and her verified affidavit establish indigence under Rule 20.1, and (2) the hearing was held without adequate notice, violating due process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Eckchum)	Defendant's Argument (Court Reporter)	Held (Appellant's Position)
Whether Eckchum's affidavit and the record show indigence under Tex. R. App. P. 20.1	Verified affidavit + documentary evidence (SSA-1099, HHSC notices, Medicaid card) and reliance on public benefits are prima facie proof of inability to pay costs	Contest argues affidavit is incomplete as to income, property, and cash and therefore insufficient	Trial court abused discretion by sustaining contest; affidavit and record suffice to show indigence and court should order reporter to prepare record free of charge
Whether appellant received constitutionally adequate notice of the contest hearing	Notice was not received before the Feb. 25 hearing; certified mailing was postmarked Feb. 23 and delivery attempt occurred on Feb. 25, so Eckchum had no opportunity to be heard	Presumption of receipt may apply if notice properly addressed and mailed	Lack of actual notice deprived Eckchum of due process; hearing notice was untimely and ruling should be set aside

Higgins v. Randall County Sheriff's Office, 257 S.W.3d 684 (Tex. 2008) (liberal construction of appellate indigence rules; test for indigence is whether record shows inability to pay costs)
Griffin Indus., Inc. v. Honorable Thirteenth Court of Appeals, 934 S.W.2d 349 (Tex. 1996) (dependence on public welfare programs is prima facie evidence of inability to pay court costs)
Goffney v. Lowry, 554 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. 1977) (same principle regarding welfare dependency as evidence of indigence)
In re C.H.C., 331 S.W.3d 426 (Tex. 2011) (affidavit of indigence may be taken as true even without attached documents; courts should remain open to indigent litigants)
Moreno v. Perez, 363 S.W.3d 725 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (indigence rules construed liberally; affidavit need not address every Rule 20.1(b) factor or include attachments)
In re M.A.H., 98 S.W.3d 745 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003) (rebuttable presumption of receipt when notice properly addressed and mailed)
City of Houston v. Fore, 412 S.W.2d 35 (Tex. 1967) (procedural due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard)