El Paso Court of Appeals Reverses Order for Court Costs Due to Rule 145 Violations

In the matter of the name change of D. A. M.-F., a child, 08-25-00320-CV, February 11, 2026.

On appeal from the 388th District Court, El Paso County

Synopsis

The El Paso Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s order requiring a petitioner to pay court costs after he filed a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs. The Court held that an uncontested Statement is conclusive as a matter of law, and a trial court abuses its discretion by ordering payment without providing the mandatory ten days’ notice and conducting a formal oral evidentiary hearing as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145.

Relevance to Family Law

This decision serves as a critical procedural benchmark for family law practitioners handling SAPCR, divorce, or name-change proceedings involving indigent clients. Because family law litigation often involves high filing fees, service costs, and potential appointments of amicus attorneys or evaluators, the protections of Rule 145 are essential for ensuring access to justice. This case underscores that the trial court cannot “informally” bypass the procedural requirements of Rule 145—even upon the recommendation of a county attorney or court staff—and highlights the strict standing requirements for challenging cost orders in multi-party family litigation.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Augusto J. Martinez and Evelyn Franco filed a joint petition for the name change of their minor child. Along with the petition, Martinez filed a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs using the form approved by the Supreme Court of Texas, declaring his inability to pay under penalty of perjury. Neither the district clerk nor the court reporter filed a contest to this statement. Approximately one month later, the trial court signed an order requiring Martinez to pay a $350 filing fee. Although the court reporter later represented to the appellate court that a county attorney had spoken with Martinez and that Martinez had “declined” a hearing, the record contained no evidence of a formal motion to contest the statement, no evidence of a ten-day notice of a hearing, and no transcript of an oral evidentiary hearing. Martinez challenged the order via a motion for review in the Court of Appeals.

Issues Decided

The primary issue was whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering a party to pay court costs when a Statement of Inability was uncontested and the court failed to provide the mandatory ten-day notice and hold an oral evidentiary hearing. A secondary jurisdictional issue was whether a co-petitioner who did not file a Statement of Inability has standing to challenge a cost order directed solely at another party.

Rules Applied

The court applied Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145, which governs the exemption of costs for indigent parties. Under Rule 145(b), a party who files a Statement of Inability is exempt from paying costs unless the statement is successfully challenged. The court relied on the Texas Supreme Court’s holding in Campbell v. Wilder, 487 S.W.3d 146 (Tex. 2016), which establishes that an uncontested statement is conclusive as a matter of law. Furthermore, the court looked to Rule 145(f), which prohibits a court from ordering payment unless the declarant receives ten days’ notice and the court conducts an oral evidentiary hearing supported by detailed findings.

Application

The El Paso Court of Appeals began by dismissing the mother’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, noting that under Rule 145(g), only the specific “declarant” of a statement has standing to challenge an order for costs. Turning to the merits of Martinez’s challenge, the court found the record devoid of the mandatory procedural safeguards required to override a claim of indigency. Because no clerk, reporter, or party filed a motion with sworn evidence under Rule 145(e)(1), and the trial court did not properly initiate a sua sponte inquiry under Rule 145(e)(2), Martinez’s statement remained legally conclusive. The court specifically rejected the notion that informal discussions with a county attorney or “recommendations” from the bench satisfy the rule. The absence of a ten-day notice and a formal oral hearing rendered the trial court’s order an abuse of discretion, as it was made without reference to the guiding principles of Rule 145.

Holding

The Court of Appeals held that when a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs is uncontested by motion or sua sponte inquiry supported by evidence, the statement is conclusive as a matter of law and the declarant must be allowed to proceed without payment.

The Court further held that a trial court commits a reversible abuse of discretion if it orders a declarant to pay costs without strictly adhering to the procedural requirements of Rule 145(f), specifically the provision of at least ten days’ notice and the conduct of a formal oral evidentiary hearing.

The Court also held that a non-declarant party lacks standing to challenge an order requiring another party to pay court costs under Rule 145.

Practical Application

For the practitioner, this case emphasizes that Rule 145 is not a mere suggestion but a mandatory procedural framework. When representing a client of limited means, practitioners should ensure the Statement of Inability is filed early and matches the Supreme Court’s approved form. If the court or clerk attempts to demand payment, the lawyer must object to any hearing scheduled on less than ten days’ notice and insist that any challenge be supported by sworn evidence—not mere allegations of income. In cases with multiple petitioners (such as two parents), it is vital to remember that only the party who filed the statement can appeal an adverse cost order.

Checklists

Securing the Cost Exemption

• Use the current Supreme Court of Texas approved form for the Statement of Inability.
• File the statement simultaneously with the initial pleading to stay the obligation to pay.
• Monitor the docket for a Rule 145(e) motion to contest; ensure any such motion contains sworn evidence of falsity or changed circumstances.
• If a hearing is set, verify that the client received at least ten days’ notice of the hearing date.

Conducting the Indigency Hearing

• Request a court reporter to ensure a record of the oral evidentiary hearing is created.
• If the court proceeds sua sponte, demand the court identify the “evidence before the court” that triggered the inquiry under Rule 145(e)(2).
• Be prepared to meet the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant is unable to pay.
• Ensure the final order contains “detailed findings” that the declarant can afford costs; a general or conclusory order is insufficient under Rule 145(f)(2).

Preserving Appellate Review

• File the notice of appeal/motion for review within the appropriate timeframe following the order to pay.
• Ensure the notice of appeal is signed by the declarant.
• Confirm that the declarant is the party actually burdened by the order to ensure standing under Rule 145(g).

Citation

In the matter of the name change of D. A. M.-F., a child, No. 08-25-00320-CV, 2026 WL __ (Tex. App.—El Paso Feb. 11, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

View Full Opinion Here

~~554700ca-9e19-4cdc-8a36-b5cc29189395~~