DONNA K. RICHTER, APPELLANT,
v.
DEVON RICHTER, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Trial court properly denied mother's motion for appointed counsel in custody dispute where she presented no proof of indigency and was already represented by counsel who actively litigated the case.
A trial court does not err in denying a motion to appoint counsel where the party presents no proof of indigency and is already represented by counsel who actively participates in the litigation.
[1] A party seeking appointment of counsel on grounds of indigency must submit proof of inability to afford an attorney; mere assertion without evidence is insufficient.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a custody dispute between parents, the mother requested appointment of counsel, claiming inability to afford an attorney. However, her counsel was …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appointed Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Appellant, respondent mother in.the trial court, has appealed from a judgment awarding custody of the parties’ children to the appellee, petitioner father. The sole issue raised on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to appoint counsel to represent her on the ground that she was “unable to afford the services of an attorney”.
Appellant’s counsel stated in the motion that he was representing appellant for the purpose of avoiding a default, though simultaneously he filed a motion to dismiss and an answer. Thereafter, counsel filed a memorandum of law in support of the two motions and advised the trial court he would be unable to attend the hearing. Subsequently, the trial court denied the motion to appoint counsel. After judgment rendered in appellee’s favor, counsel perfected this appeal.
At no time did either appellant or her counsel submit proof of any kind that appellant was indigent and unable to employ an attorney to represent her. Though appellant’s attorney stated he was appearing for appellant for the purpose of avoiding a default, he not only filed two motions and a supporting memorandum on her behalf but also an answer, and then perfected an appeal from the adverse judgment.
In addition, counsel has failed to bring to the court’s attention and the court is unaware of any authority requiring the trial court to appoint an attorney to represent an indigent in a case of this kind and under the circumstances revealed by the record before the court.
Judgment affirmed.
BOYER, Acting C. J., and McCORD, J., concur.