Ex Parte Ullja Kuntze , 559 S.W.3d 243 ( 2018 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-17-00245-CV
EX PARTE ULLJA KUNTZE
Original Proceeding
OPINION
Ullja Kuntze has challenged the trial court’s determination that she is not unable
to pay court cost. TEX. R. CIV. P. 145.1 She first filed a motion with supporting
documentation which explained her complaint about the trial court’s determination.
Because she had already appealed an adverse judgment on the merits of the underlying
proceeding, Kuntze put the docket number for the direct appeal on her motion (10-17-
00225-CV). The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, however, specify that this Court will
review that determination upon the filing of a “motion” with this Court. TEX. R. CIV. P.
1
The Court has already determined Kuntze is unable to pay appellate court cost in this proceeding. TEX.
R. CIV. P. 145(g) (“The declarant is not required to pay any filing fees related to the motion in the court of
appeals.”).
145(g). The design of the rule clearly anticipates that the “motion” will normally be
reviewed by an appellate court while the proceeding remains pending in the trial court.
Therefore, this Court filed the “motion” and assigned a different docket number to it (10-
17-00245-CV) rather than filing the “motion” in the pending proceeding for which the
appeal of the merits had already been filed.2 We characterized the “motion” pursuant to
Rule 145 (g)(1), as an original proceeding because we had not fully determined the nature
of the proceeding but noted that it had certain characteristics of an original proceeding,
possibly even a mandamus proceeding.
As indicated, Rule 145 implies that upon the filing of the “motion,” this Court will
review the determination of the trial court that a litigant is not unable to pay court cost.
The rule does not specify the need for a notice of appeal to invoke our jurisdiction to
conduct this review. Id. Nevertheless, Kuntze filed a notice of appeal specifically to
complain about the trial court’s determination that she was not unable to pay court cost.
Realizing that Kuntze had filed a “motion,” as described by the rule, the Court filed the
notice of appeal in the same docket number as the “motion” which makes the same
complaint.
The Court had previously questioned its jurisdiction in this proceeding based on
the lack of a written order. That issue may be important in the event this is considered
an appeal; but a docket notation may be adequate if this proceeding is more akin to a
2
There was some initial confusion about where to file the motion but ultimately it was filed in a separate
proceeding from the direct appeal. Other issues were raised in the motion so it was also filed in the direct
appeal.
Ex parte Kuntze Page 2
mandamus proceeding. This issue has not yet been addressed by any party, and based
on our disposition herein, it is irrelevant.
The Court then questioned whether it had jurisdiction of the proceeding due to an
entirely different concern. As an appeal, for which our jurisdiction could possibly be
based on either (1) the notice of appeal or (2) the “motion,” our review would normally
be as in an interlocutory appeal because normally, the motion would be filed while the
trial court proceeding remained pending in the trial court.
The Court questioned whether the Texas Supreme Court, by rule, may authorize
an interlocutory appeal and give an intermediate appellate court jurisdiction to review
an interlocutory order as a separate appellate court proceeding. Additionally, the Court
questioned whether, in the procedural posture of this particular proceeding, the Court
had jurisdiction to review the “motion” as an independent appeal, interlocutory or not,
based on Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.2(c), which requires the clerk to assign
the same docket number to each notice of appeal from the same trial court proceeding.
TEX. R. APP. P. 12.2(c). But see Windsor v. Round, 532 S.W.3d 825 (Tex. App.—Waco 2014,
order) (court recognizes instances when separate proceedings are docketed from the
same trial court proceeding).
Alternatively, if the Court properly docketed the “motion” as an original
proceeding, we acknowledged certain difficulties in our ability to review the trial court’s
ruling via the “motion” which does not fit the traditional format, either substantively or
procedurally, of a petition for writ of mandamus or any other original proceeding of
which we are aware and of which the legislature has given this intermediate appellate
Ex parte Kuntze Page 3
court jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221 (West 2013). Thus, the Court
questioned whether the “motion” was an original proceeding over which the legislature
had given this Court jurisdiction, as well as the alternative of whether the Texas Supreme
Court had the authority to give this Court jurisdiction to review the order via a “motion”
filed in this Court by way of an original proceeding.
Based on the nature of the issue, the Court invited responses from Kuntze, the real
parties in interest, the trial court clerk and reporter, as well as the trial court judge.
Kuntze responded but provided no authority or support for the argument that this
court has jurisdiction, either as a separate appeal or as an original proceeding, over her
complaint that the trial court erred in its determination that Kuntze is not unable to pay
court cost.
Accordingly, because the Court has determined that it does not have jurisdiction,
this proceeding is dismissed.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Proceeding dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed August 29, 2018
OT06
Ex parte Kuntze Page 4