Rule 145(f) Indigency Procedures Require Remand | Sanchez v. Reyes (2026)

Sanchez v. Reyes, 03-26-00532-CV, November 10, 2026.

On appeal from 53rd District Court, Travis County

Synopsis

An appellant who filed a statement of inability to afford court costs cannot be required to pay appellate costs unless the order overruling indigency complies with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145(f). Because the trial court’s order did not satisfy Rule 145(f), the Third Court of Appeals abated the appeal, remanded for a new indigency determination, and tolled all appellate deadlines during the abatement.

Relevance to Family Law

Indigency disputes arise frequently in divorce, custody, modification, enforcement, and termination litigation, where the expense of a clerk’s record and reporter’s record may determine whether a party can meaningfully pursue appellate review. Sanchez confirms that a family court cannot impose appellate costs based on a procedurally deficient order overruling a statement of inability to pay. Counsel representing either side must treat a Rule 145 contest as a substantive evidentiary proceeding and ensure that the resulting order contains the required findings and appellate-rights language; otherwise, the appeal may be delayed and remanded before the court of appeals reaches the merits.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Andrea Marie Sanchez appealed from an order entered in a suit to modify the parent-child relationship. After the trial court ruled, but shortly before perfecting her appeal, Sanchez filed a statement of inability to afford payment of court costs.

Appellee Joel A. Reyes contested the statement. The trial court conducted a hearing on the contest, but Sanchez did not appear. Following the hearing, the trial court sustained the challenge and ordered Sanchez to pay court costs and an appeal bond.

Sanchez then filed an emergency motion in the Third Court of Appeals. She asked the appellate court to stay the applicable deadlines and abate the appeal because the trial court had not complied with Rule 145’s procedural requirements before ordering her to pay costs. Reyes agreed in his response that the appeal should be abated and remanded for a new Rule 145 hearing.

The court of appeals did not address the merits of the underlying modification order. Its decision was limited to the validity and procedural consequences of the trial court’s indigency ruling.

Issues Decided

• Whether an appellant who filed a statement of inability to afford court costs may be required to pay appellate costs when the order overruling indigency does not comply with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145(f).

• Whether the appropriate remedy for noncompliance with Rule 145(f) is to abate the appeal and remand the case for a new indigency determination.

• Whether appellate deadlines should be tolled while the trial court conducts the required hearing and supplemental records are prepared.

Rules Applied

• Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145(f): Before requiring a declarant to pay costs, the trial court must follow the rule’s hearing procedures and enter an order containing the required detailed findings and language advising the declarant of the right to appellate review.

• Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145(h): A judgment or order that does not comply with Rule 145(f)’s requirements is void and cannot provide a valid basis for requiring the declarant to pay costs.

• Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1: A party who filed a statement of inability to afford payment of court costs in the trial court is not required to pay appellate-court costs unless the trial court overruled the claim of indigence in an order complying with Rule 145.

• In re Ramirez, 738 S.W.3d 594, 600 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2026, orig. proceeding): A declarant may not be required to pay costs when Rule 145(f)’s procedural requirements have not been satisfied.

Application

Sanchez filed a statement of inability to afford court costs before pursuing her appeal. That filing triggered the protections of Rule 145 and Rule 20.1. Although Reyes timely contested the statement and the trial court conducted a hearing, the resulting order did not comply with Rule 145(f).

Sanchez’s failure to appear at the contest hearing did not eliminate the trial court’s obligation to satisfy the rule before requiring payment. Rule 20.1 ties an appellant’s obligation to pay appellate costs to the existence of a compliant order overruling indigency—not merely to the fact that a contest was filed or a hearing occurred.

Because the trial court’s order lacked the procedures and contents required by Rule 145(f), it could not support an order requiring Sanchez to pay appellate costs. Rather than decide the indigency question itself, the Third Court of Appeals returned the matter to the trial court for a new determination.

The appellate court directed the trial court to provide immediate notice to the parties and the court reporter and, to the extent practicable, follow Rule 145(f)’s procedures. If the trial court found Sanchez indigent, it was required to enter any orders necessary to allow her to proceed without paying costs and to obtain a free appellate record.

The court also ordered the preparation of a supplemental reporter’s record from the new hearing and a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s new orders, findings, and recommendations. Those records were due within 45 days, and the appeal would be reinstated upon their filing.

Holding

An appellant who filed a statement of inability to afford payment of court costs cannot be required to pay appellate costs unless the trial court overruled the claim of indigence in an order complying with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145(f). A procedurally deficient indigency order does not satisfy Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1.

When the required Rule 145 procedures have not been followed, abatement and remand are appropriate so that the trial court may conduct a compliant indigency hearing and enter a new order with the required findings and notices.

All appellate deadlines were tolled during the abatement. The appeal would be reinstated after the supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records were filed.

Practical Application

For family-law appellate counsel, Sanchez makes the Rule 145 record an immediate post-judgment priority. In record-intensive custody and divorce cases, an erroneous indigency ruling may prevent the clerk’s record or reporter’s record from being prepared, jeopardizing the appellant’s ability to present reversible error. Counsel should review the contest, hearing notice, evidence, findings, and signed order before accepting any demand for appellate costs as enforceable.

An attorney representing the declarant should not assume that filing the statement ends the inquiry. The client must receive and respond to hearing notices, appear with admissible evidence, and be prepared to establish current income, assets, liabilities, necessary expenses, benefits, dependents, and access—or lack of access—to community or separate property. In a pending divorce, nominal ownership of property does not necessarily establish a present ability to pay substantial appellate costs, particularly when assets are controlled by the opposing spouse, frozen by temporary orders, or illiquid.

Counsel contesting indigency should likewise build a focused evidentiary record rather than rely on allegations that the declarant owns property or retained counsel. Evidence should address actual access to funds and the ability to pay particular costs when due. If the contest succeeds, prevailing counsel should submit a Rule 145-compliant proposed order containing detailed findings and the required notice concerning appellate review.

In custody and modification cases, timing is especially important. A dispute over record costs may intersect with accelerated deadlines, temporary orders, supersedeas issues, or requests for emergency relief. If the Rule 145 order is defective, appellate counsel should promptly seek review, abatement, tolling, or other appropriate relief rather than allow uncertainty over costs to disrupt record preparation.

Finally, practitioners should distinguish an indigency determination from the merits of the family-law appeal. The Sanchez court did not review the modification ruling or decide that Sanchez was indigent. It held only that she could not be required to pay appellate costs based on a noncompliant order and that the trial court had to conduct a proper indigency proceeding.

Checklists

Representing the Party Claiming Inability to Pay

• File a complete statement of inability to afford payment of court costs in the trial court.

• Verify that the statement contains current and accurate information concerning income, assets, benefits, dependents, debts, and necessary monthly expenses.

• Identify whether property listed in the statement is liquid and presently accessible.

• Calendar all hearing notices and ensure that the client appears unless the appearance requirement is expressly excused.

• Prepare supporting documents, including pay records, bank statements, benefit records, tax returns, debt statements, and evidence of necessary expenses.

• Develop evidence explaining any apparent inconsistency between asset ownership and the claimed inability to pay.

• Request a reporter’s record of the Rule 145 hearing.

• Review the signed order immediately for detailed findings and the required appellate-rights language.

• Promptly seek appellate relief if the court requires payment under a noncompliant order.

Contesting a Statement of Inability to Pay

• File the contest within the deadline prescribed by Rule 145.

• Serve the contest and ensure that proper notice of the hearing is provided.

• Obtain admissible evidence concerning income, assets, transfers, available credit, litigation funding, benefits, and access to property.

• Focus on the declarant’s actual ability to pay the specific costs at issue.

• Do not rely solely on the declarant’s representation by retained counsel or nominal ownership of illiquid assets.

• Arrange for a court reporter to transcribe the hearing.

• Request express, detailed findings supported by the evidence.

• Submit a proposed order that complies with Rule 145(f), including the required notice concerning appellate review.

• Confirm compliance before asking the clerk or reporter to condition preparation of the appellate record on payment.

Auditing the Rule 145 Order

• Confirm that the declarant received the notice required for the hearing.

• Confirm that the trial court conducted the required evidentiary proceeding.

• Determine whether the ruling is based on evidence of the declarant’s present ability to afford costs.

• Verify that the order contains detailed findings supporting the ruling.

• Verify that the order includes the language required to advise the declarant of the right to appellate review.

• Confirm that the order identifies the costs or payment obligations being imposed.

• Check whether the clerk’s and reporter’s record arrangements are consistent with the ruling.

• Determine immediately whether a motion for appellate review or emergency relief is necessary.

Protecting the Family-Law Appeal

• Calendar the notice-of-appeal, record-request, payment, briefing, and any accelerated deadlines independently of the indigency dispute.

• Notify the court of appeals promptly if a defective Rule 145 order is interfering with preparation of the record.

• Request abatement, remand, and tolling when necessary.

• Ask that the trial court provide notice to all parties and the court reporter on remand.

• Ensure that the new hearing is transcribed.

• Request supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records containing the new hearing, findings, and order.

• Monitor the deadline for filing the supplemental records.

• Confirm that the court of appeals reinstates the appeal after the supplemental records are filed.

Citation

Sanchez v. Reyes, No. 03-26-00532-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 10, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion in Sanchez v. Reyes.

~~77cd157e-d415-4d05-8d87-e296e0050318~~