Amanda Jane Reynolds v. Stephen Duane Wellman AKA Jack David Wellman ( 2018 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-17-00459-CV
____________________
AMANDA JANE REYNOLDS, Appellant
V.
STEPHEN DUANE WELLMAN AKA JACK DAVID WELLMAN, Appellee
_______________________________________________________ ______________
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 17-05-05353-CV
________________________________________________________ _____________
ORDER
Appellant, Amanda Jane Reynolds, filed a motion on February 16, 2018,
challenging the trial court’s order sustaining the court reporters’ contests to
Reynolds’s Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs. See Tex. R.
Civ. P. 145(g)(1). A clerk’s record and a reporter’s record of the proceedings on the
claim of indigence have been filed with the Court of Appeals. See Tex. R. Civ. P.
145(g)(3).
The court reporter certified that Reynolds demonstrated her ability to pay for
the record by paying for the reporter’s record before the date she claimed she was
1
indigent. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145(f)(1). Reynolds asked the trial court to confirm her
indigent status without a hearing because the contests were filed more than ten days
after Reynolds filed her statement of inability to pay costs. The trial court denied
Reynolds’s request to deny the contests without a hearing.1 See Tex. R. Civ. P.
145(f)(5). Reynolds failed to appear at the hearing to prove her inability to pay costs.
See id. Finding that Reynolds failed to appear and prove that she is unable to pay
costs, the trial court sustained the challenge and ordered Reynolds to pay costs. See
Tex. R. Civ. P. 145(f)(6).
Having reviewed the motion and the record on the claim of indigence, we
conclude that the trial court acted within its discretion by sustaining the contests. See
Basaldua v. Hadden, 298 S.W.3d 238, 241 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, no pet.)
(noting that trial court’s order sustaining contest is reviewed under abuse of
discretion standard). Accordingly, we deny Reynolds’s motion. See Tex. R. Civ. P.
145(g)(4).
ORDER ENTERED March 21, 2018.
PER CURIAM
Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.
1
Reynolds did not ask to appear by telephone. See Vodicka v. Tobolowsky,
No. 05-17-00961-CV, 2017 WL 5150992, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 7, 2017,
no pet.) (mem. op.) (“The burden rests squarely on the declarant to request access to
the court through an alternative means such as by telephone and to demonstrate why
a trial court should authorize it.”).
2