A horse, a horse, my appeal for a horse.
Darby v. Darby et al. (Published): A recently-minted ex-wife wanted to appeal her divorce, but claimed she didn't have the money to pay the court reporter or the district clerk for the necessary records. She filed an affidavit of indigency under Rule 20.1(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The ex-husband, the court reporter, and the district clerk all contested that affidavit. As a result, there was a hearing. After the hearing, the trial court ruled that the ex-wife had the wherewithal to pay if she really wanted to. The ex-wife, acting pro se filed an appeal of that ruling.
In her ninth of twelve issues, the ex-wife insisted that, since she was pro se, she shouldn't be held to the same standards as attorneys. The Tyler court reasons that the same standards must apply in either case. "Otherwise, an advantage is given to a party not represented by an attorney."
With that key point decided, the Tyler court finds that the ex-wife had waived several issues, either by failing to object at trial, or failing to properly brief the matter.
Turning to the merits of her claim. the Tyler court notes that this is a matter entrusted to the trial court's discretion. What's more, "[a] trial court is given great latitude in believing or disbelieving a witness's testimony, particularly when the witness is interested in the outcome." Despite her testimony to the contrary, the trial court found that the ex-wife had not made a good faith effort to round up the money. Tellingly, she had two horses that she refused to sell. Those horses were costing her $500 a month in upkeep. She could have used that money to pay the court reporter and the district clerk. She wasn't indigent.
