Mandamus Alert: Rule 145 Shields Indigent Litigants from ‘Pay-to-Play’ Court Registry Orders
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Fonseca, 13-25-00650-CV, January 26, 2026.
On appeal from the 139th District Court of Hidalgo County.
Synopsis
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals held that while an interlocutory order requiring a deposit into the court registry is not subject to a direct appeal, it is reviewable via mandamus when the trial court fails to comply with the mandatory procedural safeguards of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145. The court determined that once a party files a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs, a trial court abuses its discretion by ordering a “pay-to-play” deposit without making specific findings of financial ability or providing the required notice of the right to challenge the order.
Relevance to Family Law
In the context of Texas Family Law, this ruling is a critical reminder of the reach of Rule 145 beyond simple filing fees. Litigators frequently encounter orders requiring deposits into the court registry for receiverships, amicus attorney fees, or the appointment of masters in chancery. If a client is indigent and has filed a Rule 145 Statement, the trial court cannot circumvent the rule’s protections by labeling a cost as a “deposit” or “security.” This opinion provides a roadmap for protecting indigent clients from being priced out of their day in court, particularly in high-stakes property divisions or custody disputes involving expensive court-ordered professionals.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Alberto Espinoza filed a petition for bill of review to challenge a tax sale of his homestead. The defendants, Propel Financial Services and FGMS Holdings, moved to compel Espinoza to deposit $60,237.44 into the trial court’s registry pursuant to Texas Tax Code § 34.08, which generally requires such a deposit to challenge a tax sale’s validity. In response, Espinoza filed a “Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs,” detailing a monthly income of only $240 from Social Security and minimal assets. Despite this filing, and without a motion from the defendants contesting the Statement or an evidentiary hearing, the trial court signed an order nearly a year later compelling the deposit. Crucially, the order mandated that all of Espinoza’s claims would be dismissed with prejudice if the $60,237.44 was not paid by a date certain. Espinoza sought relief through both a direct appeal and a petition for writ of mandamus.
Issues Decided
The Court of Appeals addressed two primary issues: First, whether it possessed jurisdiction over a direct appeal of an interlocutory order requiring a registry deposit; and second, whether a trial court’s failure to adhere to the procedural requirements of Rule 145(f) when ordering a deposit constitutes an abuse of discretion warranting mandamus relief.
Rules Applied
The court applied Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145, which shields parties who file a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment from paying “court costs” unless the court follows specific procedures. Under Rule 145(f), if a court intends to order a party to pay costs despite the Statement, it must provide notice, conduct a hearing, and—if payment is ordered—include detailed findings regarding the party’s ability to pay and a specific notice of the party’s right to challenge the order. The court also analyzed Texas Tax Code § 34.08, which requires deposits in tax sale challenges, but noted that such statutory requirements do not override the due process protections and procedural mandates of Rule 145. Finally, the court applied the standard for Mandamus, requiring a showing of a clear abuse of discretion and the absence of an adequate remedy by appeal.
Application
The court’s analysis began with a jurisdictional gatekeeping function. It noted that the order to deposit funds into the registry was interlocutory. Because no statute specifically authorizes an interlocutory appeal for such an order, the direct appeal was dismissed. However, the court then turned to the mandamus petition, where the legal story favored Espinoza.
The court emphasized that Rule 145 is not merely a suggestion; it is a mandatory framework designed to ensure the courthouse doors remain open to the indigent. Once Espinoza filed his Statement, the burden shifted. Because the defendants did not contest the Statement with evidence, the trial court could not simply ignore it based on the Tax Code’s general requirements. The court reasoned that when a trial court moves to require a deposit from a protected party, it must strictly adhere to Rule 145(f). In this case, the trial court’s order was fatally flawed because it lacked the required detailed findings of fact and failed to inform Espinoza of his right to an immediate challenge of the order. By threatening dismissal with prejudice for non-payment without first establishing the legal and factual basis to override the Rule 145 Statement, the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion.
Holding
The Court of Appeals dismissed the direct appeal in cause number 13-25-00650-CV for lack of jurisdiction, as the registry order was interlocutory and not subject to statutory appeal.
Regarding the mandamus proceeding in cause number 13-25-00660-CV, the court conditionally granted the writ. The court held that a trial court abuses its discretion when it orders a party who has filed a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment to deposit funds into the court registry without complying with the mandatory notice and finding requirements of Rule 145(f). The court directed the trial court to vacate its order, noting that because the order threatened the ultimate termination of the litigation, mandamus was the only adequate remedy.
Practical Application
For family law practitioners, the Espinoza holding is a powerful tool when facing “pay-to-play” orders. If your client is indigent and the court orders a deposit for a custody evaluation or a receiver, ensure a Rule 145 Statement is on file. If the court proceeds to order the deposit anyway, the order must contain the specific findings and notice required by Rule 145(f). If it doesn’t, the order is vulnerable to mandamus. Conversely, if you represent the party seeking the deposit, you must proactively contest the Rule 145 Statement and ensure the trial court’s order is robust enough to survive appellate scrutiny by including the necessary findings.
Checklists
Protecting the Indigent Client from Registry Orders
- File Early: File the Rule 145 Statement of Inability to Afford Payment at the outset of the case or immediately when financial circumstances change.
- Object to Deposits: If a motion for a registry deposit (e.g., for an amicus or expert) is filed, specifically cite Rule 145 in your response.
- Audit the Order: If the court grants the motion to compel a deposit, check the order for:
- Detailed findings of fact regarding the client’s actual ability to pay.
- Specific notice regarding the right to challenge the order under Rule 145.
- Seek Mandamus: If the order lacks these elements and threatens dismissal or exclusion of evidence, skip the direct appeal and file for mandamus relief immediately.
Contesting a Rule 145 Statement (For the Movant)
- File a Contest: Do not rely on the judge to ignore the Statement; file a formal contest to the Rule 145 Statement.
- Request an Evidentiary Hearing: Ensure the court holds a hearing where you can present evidence of the other party’s ability to pay (e.g., recent bank statements, lifestyle evidence).
- Draft Findings: Provide the court with proposed detailed findings of fact to include in the order to ensure compliance with Rule 145(f).
Citation
Espinoza v. FGMS Holdings, LLC, 13-25-00650-CV; In re Espinoza, 13-25-00660-CV (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Jan. 26, 2026, orig. proceeding).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
In Texas divorce and custody litigation, Rule 145 is frequently weaponized to manage the high costs of litigation. This ruling clarifies that even when a specific statute (like the Tax Code here, or perhaps the Family Code in other instances) suggests a mandatory payment or security, Rule 145 provides an overarching protection for indigent litigants. If a family court orders an indigent parent to deposit funds for a social study or a court-appointed coordinator under the threat of dismissing their custody claims, Espinoza confirms that such an order is a clear abuse of discretion unless the Rule 145(f) procedural hurdles are cleared. This prevents wealthier spouses from using court-ordered costs as a strategic “barrier to entry” to exhaust the resources of an indigent opponent.
~~e9d10f46-5f59-40d0-8b5b-9595c77f6e9d~~
Share this content:
