Jackson v. North Forest Indep. Sch. Dist.

KATHRYN MYLES JACKSON AND CLIFTON JACKSON, Appellants

v.NORTH FOREST INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee

NO. 01-10-00010-CV

Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas

Opinion issued January 26, 2012

On Appeal from the 113th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2009-69445

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants, Kathryn Myles Jackson and Clifton Jackson, appearing pro se, challenge the trial court's order dismissing their lawsuit against appellee, NorthForest Independent School District ("North Forest ISD"), multiple other governmental entities, and Mandola Jos. F.¹ In their sole issue, the Jacksons contend that the trial court erred in sustaining the Harris County District Clerk's contest to their affidavit of indigence² and ultimately dismissing their lawsuit for failing to pay the filing fee and other costs.

We reverse and remand.

Background

On October 27, 2009, the Jacksons filed their Original Petition for Title of Real Property Acquired by Adverse Possession and Temporary Restraining Order, alleging that they had acquired property located at "0 Laura Koppe Rd. Houston, Texas 77028"³ by adverse possession after maintaining the property for twenty-five years. The Jacksons further allege that, as a result of a judgment obtained by North Forest ISD in a separate lawsuit, the property was scheduled to be sold "for delinquent taxes" on November 3, 2009.⁴ The Jacksons seek an order temporarily restraining the sale of the property.

The Jacksons attached to their petition a notarized Application to Proceed without Payment of Fees, which they both signed.⁵ In their application, the Jacksons jointly declare that they are unable to pay the costs of the proceedings and are "entitled to the relief sought in the petition."⁶ They state that they are not incarcerated, are not currently employed, and their last day of employment had been on July 15, 2008. They aver that, in the previous twelve months, they have not received money from "business, profession, or other self employ," "rent payments, interest or dividends," "annuities or life insurance payments," "disability or workers compensation payments," or "inheritances." Finally, the Jacksons state,

I declare that I have less than $20.00 in my checking account; I own a frame house, and a 2002 Honda CRV that is currently in bankruptcy. There is no one that depends on me for support[.] My husband and I both are currently employed and receives 12 dollars an hour 20 hours per week as of Sept. 2009. Our current expenses exceeds [sic] our combined income. Bankruptcy payment is $865 per month, furniture payment $232.72, car insurance $85.00, house insurance $140.00, food $200.00, phone bill $45.00, $102.00.

On November 13, 2009, the district clerk filed a Contest of Affidavit of Indigence. Contending that the Jacksons had failed to comply with one or more unspecified "statutory requirements," the district clerk "demand[ed] strict proof" that the Jacksons were "too poor to pay filing fees." On December 7, 2009, the trial court conducted a hearing on the district clerk's contest. The reporter's record from this hearing reveals that, immediately after a trial court clerk had notified the trial court that the Jacksons had called the court to state that they could not attend the hearing, the trial court instructed the Harris County Attorney to "fill in the blanks" of the proposed order sustaining the contest. It then stated that it would sign the order. Neither the district clerk nor the trial court ever discussed on the record the substance of the Jacksons' affidavit.

Also on December 7, 2009, the trial court signed the Judgment and Order Sustaining Contest to Pauper's Oath. In its order, the trial court found that the Jacksons were able to pay the filing fees, the Jacksons' affidavit was not filed in good faith, and the contest should be sustained. The trial court made no other findings in support of its order, nor did it set forth any reasons to support its finding that the Jacksons had filed their affidavit in bad faith. The trial court enjoined any further proceedings in the case until the Jacksons paid $509 in filing fees, and other incurred costs. It also ordered that the case would be dismissedwithout prejudice and noted that it would enter a judgment against the Jacksons in the amount of $509 if they did not pay such fees by February 8, 2010.

On December 18, 2009, the Jacksons filed a document entitled "Appeal from Adverse Decision," in which they asked the trial court to vacate its order granting the district clerk's contest. It appears that, based upon the substance of this document, the Jacksons may have intended this document to constitute a request for the trial court to reconsider its ruling. The Jacksons asserted that, as early as December 4, 2009, they had notified the district clerk, through the Harris County Attorney, that they had not received proper notice of the December 7, 2009 hearing and that they could not attend the hearing in light of a conflicting medical appointment at a hospital. The Jacksons also attached a bank statement reflecting a current available balance of $17.07. In January 2010, the district clerk forwarded this document to this Court, and we treated it as a notice of appeal from the trial court's order sustaining the district clerk's contest.

We then notified the Jacksons that their appeal of the trial court's order sustaining the district clerk's contest had been filed in this Court. After sending them this notice, the Jacksons began to direct additional motions to this Court, but they also continued to make filings in the trial court. For example, on January 26, 2010, the Jacksons filed in this Court an "Emergency Motion to Enforce Hearing on TRO's in Adverse Possession Proceeding," complaining that they had notreceived timely notice of the contest hearing and they had notified the Harris County Attorney that they could not attend the hearing because they needed to attend a hospital appointment. On April 2, 2010, the Jacksons filed in this Court a Motion to Proceed Without Payment of Fees, in which they outlined all of their outstanding bills and averred that their expenses exceeded their combined income. The Jacksons also attached copies of their payroll sheets and bills to this motion. This Court subsequently found, in a separate order, that the Jacksons were indigent for purposes of appeal, and we directed the filing of a record from the trial court.

On March 4, 2011, the Jacksons filed with the district clerk a document entitled Notice of Motion Opposing Counsel's Motion for Submission, in which the Jacksons again complained they had not received notice of the contest hearing and that the hearing had proceeded "in spite of [their] circumstances and [their] explanation" for not attending the hearing. The Jacksons noted that, because the trial court had only previously "dismissed the pauper's without prejudice," they were again requesting that the trial court permit them to "proceed without payment of fees," and they asserted that they were "receiving food stamps" and other social service assistance. The Jacksons attached to their "notice" a new Application to Proceed as Paupers, in which they averred that they were unable to pay the court costs and not receiving money from business, rent, insurance, annuities, or other sources. They also outlined their monthly expenses.

On March 8, 2011, the trial court signed its Dismissal Order,⁷ noting that it had sustained the district clerk's Contest to the Pauper's Oath on December 7, 2009 and, in its prior order, found that the Jacksons were able to pay all costs. It further noted that it had ordered the Jacksons to pay the filing fee of $509 by February 8, 2010 and their failure to pay the fee would result in a dismissal of their lawsuit. The trial court stated that, in accord with its December 7, 2009 order, theJacksons' lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice because they had not paid the filing fee and other costs by February 8, 2010. The trial court also entered a judgment against the Jacksons and in favor of the district clerk for $509. The Jacksons then filed another document entitled Appeal from Adverse Decision.⁸

Standard of Review

We review for an abuse of discretion the trial court's dismissal order. Black v. Jackson, 82 S.W.3d 44, 49-50 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2002, no pet.) (providing that standard of review of dismissal under section 13.001 of Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code is abuse of discretion)⁹ ; Johnson v. Peterson, 799 S.W.2d 345, 347 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, no writ) (same); see also Arevalo v. Millan, 983 S.W.2d 803, 804 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet.) (reviewing for abuse of discretion appeal of trial court's order sustaining contest to affidavit of indigency that was filed for purposes of obtaining free appellate record); Jones v. Duggan, 943 S.W.2d 90, 93 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, orig. proceeding) (reviewing, by mandamus, trial court's order sustainingcontest to affidavit to inability to pay appellate costs for abuse of discretion)¹⁰ ; Douglas v. Ingersoll, No. 14-09-00930-CV, 2010 WL 1077420, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 25, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.) (stating that when "contest is sustained and a review of the ruling is sought, the question is whether an examination of the record as a whole establishes that the trial court abused its discretion"; reversing trial court's order sustaining district clerk's contest to affidavit of indigence filed for purposes of appeal); Auto v. Travelers Ins. Co., No. 01-05-00327-CV, 2006 WL 2893324, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (stating that if "trial court sustains the contest, we must determine whether the court abused its discretion."). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner without reference to guiding rules or principles. Arevalo, 983 S.W.2d at 804. To show a clear abuse of...