Background
Ra Hermes Velthra sought to proceed without paying court costs under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that Velthra was not indigent, citing evidence that he owned stock worth approximately $29,000, received voluntary financial assistance, and could draw on his stock holdings when necessary.
The trial court later dismissed Velthra’s claims under Rule 91a, awarded Investorade $4,800 in attorney’s fees, and set a $7,500 supersedeas bond. Velthra appealed and filed an emergency motion asking the court of appeals to review both the indigency determination and the bond. Investorade moved to enforce the bond requirement.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed the order denying Velthra’s claim of indigency. Because the record contained evidence that he possessed assets available to pay costs, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Velthra failed to prove an inability to afford them. His preference not to liquidate stock because doing so would be financially detrimental did not establish indigency.
The court reversed the $7,500 supersedeas-bond requirement and rendered judgment that no bond was required. The only monetary relief in the final judgment was an award of attorney’s fees incurred in defending the case. Those fees were neither compensatory damages nor costs for purposes of suspending enforcement of a money judgment, so they could not support a supersedeas bond. The court therefore denied Investorade’s motion to enforce the bond requirement.
Key Takeaways
- A party claiming inability to pay court costs bears the burden of proving indigency, and available investment assets may support denial of that claim.
- A litigant’s reluctance to liquidate assets because doing so would be financially disadvantageous does not necessarily establish inability to pay costs.
- When a judgment awards only litigation attorney’s fees and no compensatory damages or costs, no supersedeas bond is required to suspend its enforcement.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes the resources considered when determining whether a litigant can afford court costs from the monetary awards that may be secured by a supersedeas bond. A party may be required to pay appellate costs based on available assets while still owing no security to suspend enforcement of an attorney’s-fee-only judgment.
For appellate practitioners, the opinion confirms that a trial court may not include ordinary attorney’s fees incurred in prosecuting or defending a claim when calculating security under Texas supersedeas rules.