CourtListener 10782746•In the Matter of Marriage of Melissa Ramirez and Silvestre Fermin Torres and in the Interest of R.S.T. and A.D.T., Children v. the State of Texas
In the Matter of Marriage of Melissa Ramirez and Silvestre Fermin Torres and in the Interest of R.S.T. and A.D.T., Children v. the State of Texas
CourtListener 10782746Txctapp1329 de jan. de 2026
Texto completo
NUMBER 13-25-00670-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN THE MATTER OF MARRIAGE OF MELISSA RAMIREZ AND
SILVESTRE FERMIN TORRES AND IN THE INTEREST OF R.S.T. AND
A.D.T, CHILDREN
ON APPEAL FROM THE 332ND DISTRICT COURT
OF HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Peña and West
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña
On July 16, 2025, appellant Melissa Ramirez filed a statement of inability to afford
payment of court costs in the trial court. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 145(b). At a status conference
hearing held on November 6, 2025, the trial court orally ordered the parties to attend
mediation and split the costs. On November 17, 2025, appellant filed an objection to the
trial court’s order pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145. See id. R. 145. On
December 8, 2025, the trial court signed an order overruling appellant’s objection and
reaffirming that each party pay 50% of the mediation costs. Appellant filed a notice of
appeal on December 11, 2025, and timely filed a motion in this Court on December 18,
2025, challenging the trial court’s order pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure
145(g)(1). See id. R. 145(g)(1).
“Access to the civil justice system cannot be denied because a person cannot
afford to pay court costs.” Id. R. 145, cmt. to 2016 change. Rule 145 requires a party who
cannot afford court costs to file a sworn statement containing the same information. Id.
R. 145(b). When a statement has been filed, the declarant “must not be ordered to pay
costs unless” the declarant receives notice and an evidentiary hearing on the ability to
pay, and the trial court issues an order supported by detailed findings that the declarant
can pay costs. Id. R. 145(f)(1), (2). A declarant may challenge a trial court order finding
that they can pay costs by “motion filed in the court of appeals with jurisdiction over an
appeal from the judgment in the case” within ten days the order is signed. Id. R. 145(g)(1),
(2).
While Rule 145 authorizes a declarant to challenge an order requiring the party to
pay costs, the order must be issued “under this rule.” Id. R. 145(g)(1) (emphasis added).
Thus, “unless and until an order in compliance with subsection (f) has been signed, this
Court cannot review the merits of the trial court’s decision to require [an appellant] to pay
costs.” Tello v. Off. of Att’y Gen., Child-Support Div., No. 03-22-00668-CV, 2022 WL
17490997, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 8, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citations omitted);
see Rahut v. City of Killeen, No. 03-25-00303-CV, 2025 WL 1698732, at *1 (Tex. App.—
Austin June 18, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re M.L.M., No. 04-23-00338-CV2023, 2023
WL 4921856, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 2, 2023, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem.
2
op.); In re V.I.P.M., No. 05-23-00577-CV, 2023 WL 4881393, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas
Aug. 1, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.) (explaining an order to pay fees for an amicus attorney
appointed pursuant to the family code is not reviewable under Rule 145(g)(1) because it
was not issued “under this rule”). Based on the motion and documents attached thereto,
it does not appear that the trial court conducted a hearing or issued an order pursuant to
the requirements and procedures in subsection (f) when ordering appellant to pay
mediation costs. See id. R. 145(f). Without an order complying with subsection (f), we are
unable to exercise appellate review. See Tello, 2022 WL 17490997, at *2.
Accordingly, we dismiss this cause for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P.
42.3(a). We further dismiss all pending motions as moot. We do not address whether
mandamus relief may be appropriate because the issue is not before us, and our
dismissal of appellant’s appeal does not preclude appellant from pursuing mandamus
relief by a separate original proceeding.
L. ARON PEÑA JR.
Justice
Delivered and filed on the
29th day of January, 2026.
3
Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.