Rule 145 Requires Evidentiary Hearing and Detailed Findings | Nonamé v. Denbrock (2026)

Kai Nonamé v. Nicholas Denbrock, 03-26-00216-CV, June 05, 2026.

On appeal from 169th District Court of Bell County

Synopsis

Rule 145(f) does not permit a trial court to order payment of court costs based on a paper record, an off-the-record setting, or conclusory findings. Even when the declarant fails to appear, the court must create a record showing compliance with Rule 145’s procedural prerequisites, including an oral evidentiary hearing and detailed findings that the litigant can afford costs.

Relevance to Family Law

This matters directly in SAPCRs, divorces, enforcement proceedings, and modification litigation because indigence disputes arise constantly when one side seeks to avoid filing fees, service costs, reporter’s records, clerk’s records, or appellate costs. The Austin Court’s order is a reminder that family-law trial courts cannot shortcut Rule 145 merely because a party is difficult, self-represented, noncompliant, or absent. If the court is going to require payment of costs in a custody, support, enforcement, or property case, it must conduct the Rule 145 process in a way that permits meaningful appellate review. For family-law litigators, that means preserving the record both when challenging an inability statement and when defending one.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The underlying matter was a suit affecting the parent-child relationship pending in Bell County. The appellant filed an amended statement of inability to afford payment of court costs or an appeal bond under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145. The trial court then sua sponte set a hearing to contest that statement and ordered the appellant to bring information and documentation supporting her claimed inability to afford costs.

The court gave the appellant the ten days’ notice required by Rule 145(f)(1). Before the hearing, however, the appellant filed written objections to the contest and expressly advised that she would not attend the scheduled hearing. She did not appear, and she offered no live evidence at the setting.

That did not end the matter. The docket sheet reflected that the hearing was “cancelled” because the appellant did not appear, and the court reporter advised both the appellant and the court of appeals that no record was taken. After the hearing date, the trial court nevertheless signed an order on the amended inability statement finding, among other things, that the appellant could afford to pay court costs other than attorney’s fees and court costs associated with defending against a child-support enforcement motion.

On appeal under Rule 145(g), the issue became whether that order could stand where there was no reporter’s record of an oral evidentiary hearing and the findings were not sufficiently detailed to demonstrate compliance with Rule 145.

Issues Decided

• Whether Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145(f) allows a trial court to require payment of court costs without an oral evidentiary hearing on the record.
• Whether Rule 145(f) requires detailed findings that the declarant can afford costs, as opposed to conclusory or partial findings.
• Whether a declarant’s failure to appear at a Rule 145 hearing excuses the trial court from creating a record sufficient to show compliance with Rule 145 and permit appellate review.
• Whether the proper appellate disposition is abatement and remand when the record does not show that Rule 145(f)’s requirements were satisfied.

Rules Applied

The court centered its analysis on Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145. Several features of the rule mattered:

• Rule 145(b) governs the filing of a statement of inability to afford payment of court costs.
• Rule 145(e)(2) permits the trial court to require the declarant to prove inability to afford costs when evidence suggests the declarant may be able to pay or when an officer or professional must be appointed.
• Rule 145(f) bars an order requiring payment of costs unless specified procedural prerequisites are met, including:
• proper notice,
• an oral evidentiary hearing,
• placement of the burden on the declarant to prove inability to afford costs, and
• detailed findings that the declarant can afford to pay costs.
• Rule 145(g) authorizes appellate review of an order requiring payment of costs.

The court also relied on the Rule 145 comment, which emphasizes that the question is not simply whether the litigant can pay costs in the abstract, but whether the litigant can afford those costs while still paying for basic essentials such as food and housing.

As supporting authority, the court cited:

• Burns v. Rowe, No. 03-25-00744-CV, 2025 WL 3465956 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 3, 2025, order), which required compliance with Rule 145(f)’s hearing-and-findings framework.
• Bell v. Bell, No. 03-24-00597-CV, 2024 WL 4774166 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 13, 2024, order), reaching the same conclusion.
• In a footnote, the court acknowledged decisions such as Flores v. Flores and Amrhein v. Bollinger, recognizing that a trial court may proceed with a Rule 145 hearing on the record when the declarant fails to appear and may conclude that the declarant failed to carry the burden. But those cases still presuppose a record and a compliant hearing process.

Application

The Austin Court treated Rule 145(f) as mandatory. The panel did not suggest that the appellant’s nonappearance was irrelevant; to the contrary, the court recognized that the burden at a Rule 145 hearing rests on the declarant, and a nonappearing declarant may fail to meet that burden. But the trial court still had to conduct the proceeding in a manner that satisfied the rule and produced a reviewable record.

That is where the order failed. The docket entry indicated that the hearing was “cancelled” because the appellant did not appear, and the court reporter confirmed that no record was made. In other words, there was no oral evidentiary hearing preserved in the record from which the appellate court could determine what, if any, evidence was considered, whether the proper burden was applied, or whether the trial court evaluated affordability in the Rule 145 sense rather than mere theoretical ability to pay.

The findings were also inadequate. The signed order stated that the appellant could afford certain court costs, but it did not contain the kind of detailed findings Rule 145(f) requires to show why that conclusion was reached or how affordability was assessed in light of basic living expenses. The deficiency was not technical. Without a record and detailed findings, the court of appeals could not perform the appellate review contemplated by Rule 145(g).

The panel therefore took a middle course that family-law practitioners should note: it did not simply reverse outright, and it did not affirm based on the appellant’s failure to appear. Instead, it abated the appeal and remanded for the trial court to hold the evidentiary hearing required by Rule 145(f) and to enter sufficiently detailed findings supporting any order requiring payment of costs.

Holding

The court held that Rule 145(f) prohibits a trial court from ordering a litigant to pay court costs unless the rule’s procedural prerequisites have been satisfied, including an oral evidentiary hearing and detailed findings that the declarant can afford those costs. A cost order entered without those features is not adequately supported for appellate review.

The court further held that a declarant’s failure to appear at the Rule 145 setting does not eliminate the trial court’s obligation to create a record showing compliance with Rule 145(f). The court may proceed in the declarant’s absence and may ultimately determine that the declarant failed to meet the burden of proof, but it still must do so through an on-the-record evidentiary proceeding and sufficiently detailed findings.

Because those requirements were not met here, the court abated the appeal and remanded the matter for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing and enter detailed findings in support of its order.

Practical Application

For family-law litigators, this order has immediate consequences in at least four recurring settings: initial filings by indigent parties, contested appeals from temporary or final orders, enforcement proceedings involving child support or possession, and cases requiring appointment of amicus attorneys, attorneys ad litem, or evaluators. In each of those contexts, Rule 145 disputes can become outcome-determinative because they affect access to the courthouse, the ability to perfect appeal, and the allocation of litigation pressure.

If you represent the party challenging a Rule 145 statement, Nonamé is a reminder that winning the procedural point requires more than getting the hearing set. You need a real hearing, a court reporter, and findings that address affordability in a Rule 145 sense. A bare order saying the declarant “can pay” is vulnerable, especially if the ruling implicates appellate costs in a high-conflict custody or support case.

If you represent the declarant, do not read the case as forgiving nonappearance. The court expressly recognized that a trial court may move forward when the declarant fails to appear and may conclude that the burden was not met. The point is narrower and more important: your client’s absence does not authorize the court to bypass the rule. That gives appellate counsel a procedural lifeline, but trial counsel should not rely on it. In family cases, especially those involving accelerated deadlines, enforcement pressure, or self-represented opponents, the safer course is to prepare the evidence as though the hearing will be fully contested.

This also matters strategically in cases involving partial ability to pay. The trial court here found the appellant could afford some costs but not others. Family-law judges often try to tailor cost rulings in the same way, particularly in enforcement or modification cases where one side has constrained cash flow but ongoing income. Nonamé suggests that even a nuanced or partial cost ruling must be supported by detailed findings explaining why the litigant can afford the specified costs without sacrificing basic necessities. That opens space for more disciplined presentation of income, debts, child-related expenses, housing costs, and access to liquid funds.

Finally, appellate practitioners in family law should treat Rule 145 orders as record-driven. If the reporter’s record is missing, the findings are conclusory, or the hearing never actually occurred, the remedy may be abatement and remand rather than immediate merits relief. That can materially affect appellate timing, supersedeas strategy, and the client’s ability to proceed with or defend the appeal.

Checklists

Checklist for Challenging a Rule 145 Statement

• Confirm that the declarant filed a statement complying with Rule 145(b).
• Identify the basis for contesting inability to afford costs under Rule 145(e)(2).
• Request a hearing with at least ten days’ notice.
• Ensure a court reporter is present and a record is taken.
• Present evidence directed to affordability, not merely theoretical access to money.
• Ask the court to evaluate whether the declarant can pay costs while still meeting basic necessities.
• Submit a proposed order with detailed findings, not conclusory recitals.
• If the declarant fails to appear, proceed on the record and ask the court to make findings based on the burden of proof and the absence of evidence.

Checklist for Defending a Rule 145 Statement in Family Court

• File a complete, sworn, and internally consistent Rule 145 statement.
• Avoid signature qualifiers or limiting language that may undermine credibility.
• Prepare evidence of:
• current income,
• government benefits,
• bank balances,
• monthly housing expense,
• utilities,
• transportation,
• food,
• childcare,
• medical expenses,
• debt service, and
• extraordinary child-related costs.
• Tie the evidence to the Rule 145 affordability standard: ability to pay costs without foregoing basic essentials.
• Attend the hearing unless excused by court order.
• If attendance is impossible, seek alternative relief in advance rather than simply refusing to appear.
• Make sure the hearing is on the record.
• Request detailed findings if the court orders any payment of costs.

Checklist for Trial Judges and Prevailing Parties Drafting the Order

• Recite that the court held an oral evidentiary hearing.
• Identify the date of the hearing and the parties who appeared.
• State that the burden was placed on the declarant under Rule 145(f).
• Specify the evidence considered.
• Make findings on income, assets, liquidity, and necessary living expenses.
• Address whether payment of the identified costs would impair the declarant’s ability to afford basic necessities.
• If ordering payment of only some costs, explain why those costs are affordable.
• Avoid generic language such as “the party can pay costs” without supporting detail.

Checklist for Preserving Error and Positioning the Appeal

• Obtain the signed Rule 145 order promptly.
• Confirm whether a reporter’s record exists.
• Compare the order’s findings to the requirements of Rule 145(f).
• If the findings are conclusory or incomplete, raise that defect on appeal.
• If no hearing was recorded, highlight the absence of a reviewable record under Rule 145(g).
• Cite Nonamé, Burns, and Bell for the proposition that abatement and remand may be required.
• If the declarant failed to appear, distinguish failure of proof from failure of procedure.
• Build the appellate argument around the rule’s mandatory prerequisites, not equitable excuses.

Citation

Kai Nonamé v. Nicholas Denbrock, No. 03-26-00216-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Austin June 5, 2026, order and mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~195c03a3-4ebb-41e6-acf5-fb45f5b695d6~~