Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña Jr., 13-25-00670-CV, January 29, 2026.
On appeal from the 332nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.
Synopsis
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals held that it lacks jurisdiction to review a challenge to a cost-payment order under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145(g) unless the trial court has strictly complied with the procedural prerequisites of Rule 145(f). Specifically, an appellate court cannot reach the merits of whether a declarant can afford costs if the trial court failed to provide notice, hold an evidentiary hearing, and issue an order supported by detailed findings.
Relevance to Family Law
In family law practice, orders requiring the parties to split mediation fees, amicus attorney fees, or evaluator costs are ubiquitous. When a party has filed a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs, Rule 145 shields them from these expenses unless specific hurdles are cleared. This decision highlights a significant procedural trap: if a trial court orders an indigent parent or spouse to pay costs without following the “detailed findings” roadmap of Rule 145(f), the order is technically not reviewable via the expedited motion process in Rule 145(g). Practitioners must distinguish between a challenge to an order issued under the rule (which allows for a motion in the court of appeals) and an order issued in violation of the rule’s procedures (which may require the more onerous path of mandamus).
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Melissa Ramirez filed a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs in July 2025 during the course of a family law matter. Months later, during a status conference, the trial court orally directed the parties to attend mediation and split the associated costs. Ramirez filed a formal objection to this requirement, citing her indigent status under Rule 145. The trial court subsequently signed a written order overruling her objection and reaffirming that each party was responsible for 50% of the mediation fees. Ramirez then sought to challenge this order in the Court of Appeals by filing a motion pursuant to Rule 145(g)(1), which provides an expedited mechanism for appellate review of orders requiring the payment of costs.
Issues Decided
The Court of Appeals addressed whether it had jurisdiction under Rule 145(g)(1) to review the merits of a trial court’s order requiring a party to pay costs when that order was not preceded by the notice and evidentiary hearing required by Rule 145(f).
Rules Applied
The court analyzed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145. Subsection (b) allows a party to file a sworn statement of inability to pay. Subsection (f) mandates that a declarant “must not be ordered to pay costs” unless the court provides notice and an evidentiary hearing, and subsequently issues an order containing “detailed findings” that the declarant can afford the costs. Subsection (g) allows a declarant to challenge an order issued “under this rule” by filing a motion in the court of appeals within ten days. The court also looked to established precedent from the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Courts of Appeals, which strictly construe the phrase “under this rule” to require full procedural compliance by the trial court.
Application
The court’s reasoning focused on the phrase “under this rule” found in Rule 145(g)(1). The court noted that the expedited appellate review provided by Rule 145 is a narrow jurisdictional grant. Because the trial court in this case ordered the payment of mediation costs without conducting an evidentiary hearing or making the detailed findings required by subsection (f), the resulting order was not technically issued “under this rule.” The court followed a line of cases (including Tello v. OAG and In re V.I.P.M.) holding that until a trial court signs an order that complies with the procedural rigors of subsection (f), the appellate court remains powerless to review the merits of the cost determination. The legal story here is one of procedural conditionality: the right to a Rule 145(g) motion is earned only through the trial court’s adherence to Rule 145(f).
Holding
The Court of Appeals dismissed the challenge for want of jurisdiction. The court held that because the trial court failed to conduct the required hearing or issue an order with detailed findings pursuant to Rule 145(f), the appellate court could not exercise review under Rule 145(g).
The court further noted that its dismissal for lack of jurisdiction did not preclude the appellant from seeking relief via a petition for writ of mandamus. However, since the issue of mandamus was not before the court, it declined to address whether the trial court’s failure to follow Rule 145(f) constituted an abuse of discretion remediable by that extraordinary writ.
Practical Application
For family law litigators, this case clarifies the strategic path when a trial court ignores a Rule 145 statement. If the court holds a hearing and makes findings you disagree with, your remedy is a Rule 145(g) motion in the court of appeals. However, if the court simply ignores the statement and orders your client to pay for a mediator or an amicus, a Rule 145(g) motion will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In the latter scenario, you must either (1) object and specifically request the Rule 145(f) hearing and findings to “perfect” your right to a Rule 145(g) motion, or (2) bypass Rule 145(g) and file a petition for writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to comply with the mandatory duties set forth in Rule 145(f).
Checklists
Securing Appellate Jurisdiction under Rule 145(g)
- Confirm the Rule 145(b) Statement is properly filed and not contested by the clerk/reporter, or if contested, ensure a hearing is set.
- Request a formal evidentiary hearing on the record specifically regarding the ability to pay costs.
- Present evidence (testimony or exhibits) supporting the inability to pay.
- Draft and submit a proposed order for the trial court that includes “detailed findings” of fact, rather than a generic order.
- File the Motion to Challenge the Order in the Court of Appeals within 10 days of the signed order.
Responding to a Defective Cost Order
- Identify whether the trial court provided the required 10-day notice of a hearing.
- Verify whether an actual evidentiary hearing took place.
- Check the written order for “detailed findings” explaining why the declarant can afford costs.
- If these elements are missing, prepare a Petition for Writ of Mandamus instead of a Rule 145(g) motion.
Citation
In the Matter of Marriage of Melissa Ramirez and Silvestre Fermin Torres, No. 13-25-00670-CV, 2026 WL 393961 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Jan. 29, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~a9a816c9-0eaf-4a6e-8cd2-2f7fa6b328c2~~
Share this content: