A Texas court has decided to send back a case involving Andrea Marie Sanchez and Joel A. Reyes concerning the modification of a parent-child relationship. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, ruled on November 10, 2026, that Sanchez's ability to pay court costs must be reassessed. This ruling impacts how costs are handled in similar family law cases, especially for individuals claiming they cannot afford them.

The dispute arose when Sanchez appealed a trial court's order that required her to pay court costs and an appeal bond. Sanchez had previously filed a statement claiming she could not afford these costs. Reyes contested this statement, leading to a hearing where Sanchez did not appear. The trial court subsequently ruled against her statement of inability to pay.

The case reached the Texas Court of Appeals after Sanchez filed an emergency motion. In her motion, she argued that the trial court did not follow proper procedures when it ordered her to pay the costs. Specifically, she pointed out that the trial court did not meet the requirements outlined in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145, which governs claims of indigence.

In the appeal, the court noted that Sanchez's claim of inability to pay must be properly considered. The court stated, "A party who filed a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs in the trial court is not required to pay costs in the appellate court unless the trial court overruled the party’s claim of indigence in an order that complies with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145." This highlights the importance of following procedural rules in such cases.

The judges involved in this ruling included Justices Triana, Crump, and Ellis. They agreed that the trial court's order did not comply with the necessary procedural requirements. Therefore, the court ruled to abate the appeal and remand the case back to the trial court for a new hearing to determine Sanchez's indigency.

As part of the ruling, the court instructed the trial court to provide notice of the hearing to all parties involved and conduct a hearing to reassess Sanchez's financial status. The appellate deadlines were also tolled during this abatement period. The court emphasized that the trial court should follow the procedural requirements of Rule 145(f) when determining Sanchez's ability to pay.

This ruling is significant as it clarifies the procedures that must be followed when a party claims they cannot afford court costs. It reinforces the rights of individuals in similar situations, ensuring that they are not unjustly burdened by costs they cannot pay without proper evaluation.

The impact of this ruling extends beyond the immediate parties involved. It sets a precedent for how courts should handle claims of indigence in family law cases. This is particularly important for individuals who may be facing financial difficulties but still seek to navigate the legal system.

Looking ahead, the trial court will need to conduct the new hearing and determine whether Sanchez is indeed indigent. If the court finds that she qualifies as indigent, it will allow her to proceed without paying court costs and provide her with a free appellate record. The appellate process will resume once the necessary supplemental records are filed, which are due within 45 days of the court's opinion.

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Sanchez or Reyes had legal representation in this case. The outcome of this remand could influence future cases involving similar claims of inability to pay court costs, ensuring that the rights of individuals in financial distress are upheld in the judicial process.