What did the appeals court decide?

The court dismissed the appeal because it concluded it did not have jurisdiction to hear a standalone appeal under Rule 145(g) challenging the trial court's finding about the appellant's ability to pay court costs.

Who is affected by this decision?

The decision affects the appellant, Ra Hermes Velthra, because his attempt to immediately appeal the indigency finding was dismissed; it also affects the appellee because the trial court's order stands for now.

What happens next for the appellant?

Without jurisdiction, the appellant cannot pursue this interlocutory appeal; he may raise the indigency issue by motion in the court of appeals if there is an appeal from the final judgment in the underlying case or seek other appropriate relief in the trial court.

Can this dismissal be appealed?

Typically, an order dismissing for lack of jurisdiction is final as to this attempted appeal, but the appellant can pursue the indigency challenge within an appeal from the final judgment when one exists.

Ra Hermes Velthra v. Investorade Community Holdings, LLC Dba Texas Hill Country Resort

Docket 04-26-00206-CV

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilDismissed

Filed: Apr 8, 2026 · 3 weeks ago
Jurisdiction: Texas
Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)
Type: Lead Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Dismissed
Docket: 04-26-00206-CV

Appeal from a trial-court order finding appellant able to pay court costs following a hearing on a statement of inability to afford payment of court costs

Summary

The Fourth Court of Appeals dismissed Ra Hermes Velthra’s appeal challenging a trial court’s finding that he could pay court costs. Velthra sought review under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145(g) after a February 26, 2026 hearing, but the appellate court concluded Rule 145(g) does not permit a standalone interlocutory appeal. The court ordered Velthra to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed; he submitted the indigency order but no final judgment in the underlying case. Lacking jurisdiction, the court dismissed the appeal on April 8, 2026.

Issues Decided

Whether Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145(g) authorizes an interlocutory appeal of a trial court's finding that a party is not indigent
Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal challenging an indigency determination absent a final judgment or existing appeal

Court's Reasoning

The court relied on the text of Rule 145(g), which authorizes a party to challenge a non-indigency finding only by motion filed in the court of appeals that has jurisdiction over an appeal from the final judgment in the case, not by a standalone interlocutory appeal. Because the appellant produced no final judgment or existing appeal in the underlying dispute to confer appellate jurisdiction, Rule 145(g) did not provide an independent basis for this court to hear the matter. For lack of jurisdiction, the appeal was dismissed.

Authorities Cited

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145(g)TEX. R. CIV. P. 145(g)
Interest of P.M.M.No. 04-23-00552-CV, 2023 WL 8896898 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Dec. 27, 2023, no pet.)

Parties

Appellant: Ra Hermes Velthra
Appellee: InvestoraDe Community Holdings, LLC dba Texas Hill Country Resort
Judge: M. Patrick Maguire

Key Dates

Trial-court indigency hearing: 2026-02-26
Appellate decision filed: 2026-04-08

What You Should Do Next

1
Confirm existence of a final judgment or pending appeal
Determine whether a final judgment in the underlying case exists or will be entered; Rule 145(g) allows challenge of an indigency finding within the context of an appeal from the final judgment.
2
File indigency challenge in the context of an appeal
If a final judgment is or will be appealed, file a motion in the appropriate court of appeals to challenge the trial court's non-indigency finding under Rule 145(g).
3
Consult counsel about trial-court remedies
Consider returning to the trial court to seek reconsideration or present additional evidence about financial status, and consult an attorney about other procedural options.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the appeals court decide?: The court dismissed the appeal because it concluded it did not have jurisdiction to hear a standalone appeal under Rule 145(g) challenging the trial court's finding about the appellant's ability to pay court costs.
Who is affected by this decision?: The decision affects the appellant, Ra Hermes Velthra, because his attempt to immediately appeal the indigency finding was dismissed; it also affects the appellee because the trial court's order stands for now.
What happens next for the appellant?: Without jurisdiction, the appellant cannot pursue this interlocutory appeal; he may raise the indigency issue by motion in the court of appeals if there is an appeal from the final judgment in the underlying case or seek other appropriate relief in the trial court.
Can this dismissal be appealed?: Typically, an order dismissing for lack of jurisdiction is final as to this attempted appeal, but the appellant can pursue the indigency challenge within an appeal from the final judgment when one exists.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-26-00206-CV

Ra Hermes VELTHRA,
Appellant

INVESTORADE COMMUNITY HOLDINGS, LLC dba Texas Hill Country Resort,
Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas
Trial Court No. 26-010-DCCV-00047
Honorable M. Patrick Maguire, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
H. Todd McCray, Justice
Velia J. Meza, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 8, 2026

DISMISSED

Appellant Ra Hermes Velthra has filed a notice of appeal seeking appellate review of an

order concerning his ability to pay court costs. The trial court conducted a hearing on Velthra’s

Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs on February 26, 2026, and determined

that Velthra had access to the necessary funds and was therefore required to pay court costs.

Appellant relies on Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145(g) as a basis for filing this appeal.

However, Rule 145(g) does not authorize interlocutory appeals. Rather, it provides a means to
04-26-00206-CV

challenge indigency-related orders within the context of an existing appeal. See TEX. R. CIV. P.

145(g) (authorizing party contesting finding of non-indigency to “challenge the order by motion

filed in the court of appeals with jurisdiction over an appeal from the judgment in the case”)

(emphasis added); Interest of P.M.M., No. 04-23-00552-CV, 2023 WL 8896898, at *1 (Tex.

App.—San Antonio Dec. 27, 2023, no pet.).

Accordingly, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this cause should not be

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant responded, reiterating his desire to challenge the trial

court’s finding that he is able to pay court costs. While he attached the trial court’s order regarding

indigency, he offered no evidence of a final judgment in the underlying dispute that would support

this court’s jurisdiction. Because Rule 145(g) does not independently authorize an interlocutory

appeal, we dismiss this cause for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

-2-