Sanchez v. Gonzales

Sanchez v. Gonzales, 13-25-00222-CV, February 26, 2026.

On appeal from the 36th District Court of Bee County, Texas.

Synopsis

The Thirteenth Court of Appeals dismissed this appeal for want of prosecution after the appellant failed to remit mandatory filing fees following a trial court’s finding of non-indigency. Despite the Court of Appeals providing multiple opportunities and abating the case to ensure strict compliance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145(f), the appellant’s failure to pay the required costs triggered dismissal under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 5 and 42.3.

Relevance to Family Law

In family law litigation, particularly in high-conflict custody or property disputes involving a pro se or disgruntled spouse, the "Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs" is frequently utilized as a tactical maneuver to stall proceedings or shift the substantial financial burden of the appellate record onto the appellee. This case underscores the strategic necessity of a timely Rule 145(f) challenge to force a trial court determination on indigency. If the trial court finds the party is not indigent and issues a compliant order, the appellate clock for fees begins to run, providing a clear path to dismiss a stalled appeal before the appellee incurs significant legal fees for briefing.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The appellant, Hector Sanchez, filed a notice of appeal in April 2025. Over the course of the following year, the appeal became entangled in a procedural thicket regarding the appellate record and Sanchez's ability to pay for it. Sanchez filed a statement of inability to afford court costs, prompting the Court of Appeals to abate the matter twice to the trial court. The first abatement sought clarification on whether Sanchez was actively pursuing the appeal. The second, more critical abatement, was issued because the trial court had not yet made a formal determination on Sanchez's indigency status. Following the second abatement, the trial court held a hearing and found that Sanchez was not indigent and, therefore, not entitled to a free record. Despite this finding, the Court of Appeals had to abate a third time because the trial court’s initial findings did not technically comply with the specific written order requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145(f). Once a compliant order was finally entered and the appeal reinstated, the Clerk of the Court issued multiple notices to Sanchez demanding the $205.00 filing fee and additional motion fees. Sanchez objected to the fees but failed to pay them, leading to the eventual dismissal of his case.

Issues Decided

1. Whether an appeal is subject to dismissal for want of prosecution when an appellant fails to remit filing fees after a trial court conducts a hearing and issues an order finding the appellant is not indigent under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145(f).
2. The extent of the appellate court's duty to ensure procedural compliance with Rule 145(f) before dismissing for non-payment.

Rules Applied

• Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145(f): This rule dictates that a party who files a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs may be ordered to pay costs if the court finds, after a hearing, that the party is not indigent. The rule requires a written order containing specific findings.
• Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 5: Requires the payment of filing fees in the appellate court unless the party is excused by statute or the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
• Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(b), (c): Empowers an appellate court to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution or for failure to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules or a court notice.

Application

The Court's analysis centered on the intersection of a party's right to access the courts regardless of wealth and the mandatory nature of appellate filing fees. The Court of Appeals demonstrated significant procedural patience, abating the case three separate times to ensure the trial court provided Sanchez with due process. Specifically, the Court refused to dismiss the appeal until the trial court produced an order that strictly adhered to the requirements of Rule 145(f). Once the trial court confirmed that Sanchez was not indigent—noting even that the clerk's office was amenable to payment installments—the burden shifted entirely to Sanchez to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 5. The Court reasoned that because a compliant Rule 145(f) order existed and Sanchez had been given ample notice of his delinquency, his failure to pay the $205.00 notice of appeal fee and $20.00 in motion fees left the Court with no choice but to dismiss. The "legal story" here is one of procedural exhaustion: the Court ensured all indigency protections were cleared before enforcing the financial prerequisites of the appeal.

Holding

The Court held that the appeal must be dismissed for want of prosecution under Rule 42.3. The Court determined that when a trial court issues a valid order finding an appellant is not indigent pursuant to Rule 145(f), the appellant is no longer excused from paying filing fees. The Court further held that the appellant’s failure to respond to the Clerk’s notices or remit the required fees, despite multiple warnings and the reinstatement of the appeal, justified dismissal. Each holding reflects the principle that once the trial court’s finding of non-indigency is memorialized in a Rule 145(f) order, the appellate court has the authority to terminate the appeal for non-payment.

Practical Application

For family law practitioners, this case serves as a roadmap for terminating meritless appeals early in the process. When an opposing party files a Statement of Inability to Afford Costs, do not simply accept it as a given.

1. Challenge Early: Use the discovery process to identify assets, family support, or employment potential that contradicts the Statement.
2. Request a Hearing: Move for a Rule 145(f) hearing immediately.
3. Secure a Compliant Order: Ensure the trial court’s order is not just a docket entry but a written order with findings that the party is not indigent.
4. Monitor the Docket: Once the order is in the supplemental record, monitor the appellate clerk's fee notices. If the appellant fails to pay, the appeal is vulnerable to a 42.3 dismissal.

Checklists

Challenging the Indigency Claim

• Analyze the appellant's Statement of Inability for omissions regarding liquid assets or retirement accounts.
• Subpoena bank records or employment records to rebut the claim of "zero income."
• Request a Rule 145(f) hearing within the trial court's plenary power or via abatement.
• Draft a proposed order for the trial court that includes specific findings of fact regarding the appellant's ability to pay.

Ensuring the Dismissal Sticks

• Verify the Rule 145(f) order is included in the Clerk’s Record or a Supplemental Clerk's Record.
• Confirm the Appellate Clerk has issued a formal notice of delinquency to the appellant.
• Wait for the expiration of the ten-day notice period required by Rule 42.3.
• File a letter or motion with the Court of Appeals highlighting the non-payment and the existence of the 145(f) order.

Citation

Sanchez v. Gonzales, No. 13-25-00222-CV, 2026 WL 682333 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Feb. 26, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Full Opinion Link

Family Law Crossover

In Texas family law, the "Rule 145 Trap" is a potent defensive strategy. Litigants often use indigency claims to avoid the cost of a voluminous court reporter's record in a week-long custody or property trial. By weaponizing Rule 145(f), an appellee can force a "mini-trial" on the appellant’s finances. If the trial court finds the appellant has access to funds—even if those funds are "gifted" by family members or hidden in business entities—the resulting order becomes a jurisdictional and financial barrier. As Sanchez demonstrates, even a pro se litigant who is "actively pursuing" the appeal will be cut off if the filing fees are not paid. This is particularly effective in cases where the appellant is attempting to "paper" the appellee into a settlement; forcing the payment of appellate fees often ends the litigation. ~~3fd5d821-5ec7-4ffa-95f5-39be38a4bf23~~