La. C.C.P. art. 5185 details the many entitlements of a litigant if IFP status is granted.1  These include:

(1) All services required by law of a sheriff, clerk of court, court reporter, notary, or other public officer in, or in connection with, the judicial proceeding, including but not limited to the filing of pleadings and exhibits, the issuance of certificates, the certification of copies of notarial acts and public records, the issuance and service of subpoenas and process, the taking and transcribing of testimony, and the preparation of a record of appeal.

(2)(a) The right to the compulsory attendance of not more than six witnesses for the purpose of testifying, either in court or by deposition, without the payment of the fees, mileage, and other expenses allowed these witnesses by law . . . [as well as] an order permitting the party to subpoena additional witnesses at the expense of the parish.

(3) The right to a trial by jury and to the services of jurors, when allowed by law and applied for timely.

(4) The right to have any judgment or order filed and to receive one certified copy of the judgment or order.

(5) The right to a devolutive appeal, and to apply for supervisory writs.2

Although substantial, the services listed in Article 5185 are “non-exclusive” and should be read to implicate any “routine, commonplace and recognized duties” of court officers.3  This more expansive reading has led courts to include the costs of electronic filing as a service for the IFP litigant.4  Clearer still—and related to the durability of IFP status5 —a clerk of court cannot refuse to lodge an IFP litigant’s appeal6  or deny an IFP litigant a certified copy of a divorce decree.7

One service not included in IFP coverage is court reporter transcription outside of an official court proceeding.8  As a practical matter, this greatly reduces an IFP litigant’s ability to take depositions. Parties, however, can agree to abide by the default rules found in La. C.C.P. art. 1920: “[C]osts shall be taxed against the party cast [in judgment] . . . .”9  In such a case, the IFP litigant risks a larger bill if unsuccessful at the end of the proceedings.

• 1La. C.C.P. art. 5185.
• 2Id.
• 3State ex rel. Aucoin v. Blakeman, 207 So. 2d 860, 862 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1968).
• 4See Tenney v. Burlington N. & Sante Fe Ry. Co., 2003-1260 (La. 1/21/04), 863 So. 2d 526, 528 (“Clearly, the filing of a petition by facsimile transmission is a ‘service required by law’ of a clerk of court . . . .”).
• 5On the durability of IFP status, see Section 4.5.
• 6Mason v. Hendrick, 2019-113 (La. App. 3d Cir. 4/17/19), 268 So. 3d 1074, 1078 (“[T]he clerk of court erroneously advised the Relator that the record would not be lodged without payment of the estimated costs of the appeal. Accordingly . . . the clerk of court [is] ordered to lodge the appellate record per the trial court’s September 10, 2018 order granting a devolutive appeal.”); Walcott v. Dep’t of Health & Valley Catering, 2021-0019, p. 1 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/29/21), 2021 WL 1171179 (“The plaintiff was granted pauper status . . . . Accordingly, the portion of the trial court’s . . . order conditioning . . .  [the] devolutive appeal on the payment of court costs is reversed. This matter is remanded to the trial court with instructions . . . to direct the clerk of court to prepare and lodge the record.”).
• 7Carline v. Carline, 93-1505, p. 3 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/7/94), 644 So. 2d 835, 837.
• 8See Taylor v. Broom, 526 So. 2d 1367, 1372 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1988) (emphasis original) (“We have found no law, and none has been cited to us, which requires clerks of court (or their deputies) or notaries public to take depositions; they are authorized to do so but have no affirmative duty to do so.”).
• 9La. C.C.P. art. 1920.

Depositions are not the only cost an IFP litigant may face following a final judgment. As La. C.C.P. art. 5186 specifies, accrued court costs are not eliminated; they are just delayed.1  Thus, a day in court is assured, but an IFP litigant may still be responsible for court payments.2  In litigation involving an IFP litigant, whoever is cast in judgment is responsible for the court costs, before any other payments.3  If the IFP litigant is unsuccessful and is not able to pay fees at the conclusion of the case, the clerk of court can assure payment through a judicial lien made recording an affidavit detailing the costs in the mortgage records.4

Courts can struggle to allocate fees to the unsuccessful party. For one, although La. C.C.P. art. 1920 permits a court to assign fees “as it may consider equitable,”5  this more general provision gives way to the more specific IFP statutes.6  Costs, therefore, are assigned based on success, not equity. Determining which litigant is successful, however, can prove challenging. In Hirstius v. Cleco Corp., an IFP litigant prevailed on a contempt of court proceeding, with the trial court awarding him damages and ordering the removal of cable equipment from a utility pole on his property.7  The plaintiff appealed, however, because not all the equipment was removed, as some belonged to another company.8  The First Circuit affirmed the trial court’s ruling, meaning the IFP litigant both won (at trial) and lost (on appeal).9  In assigning the costs, the appellate court determined that as success was split so should the fees and divided them equally between the parties.10

Divorce actions also demand careful analysis of “success.” When one party has IFP status, court fees are not split, as in a regular divorce proceeding.11  Rather, courts look to which party’s motion is granted to determine the successful party.12  Further, even a slight error in recording can improperly shift fees to an IFP litigant in a divorce suit. In Yarls v. Yarls, the Fourth Circuit reversed the trial court’s division of fees between the parties.13  Although the trial court granted a default judgment to the IFP litigant, the court incorrectly styled the judgment as a “divorce between the parties” and, accordingly, divided the fees between the parties.14  The appellate court clarified that the IFP litigant was the “prevailing party in the confirmation of the default, and the judgment should have been entered in her favor,” thus removing her liability for court costs.15

• 1La. C.C.P. art. 5186 (“An account shall be kept of all costs incurred by a party who has been permitted to litigate without the payment of costs, by the public officers to whom these costs would be payable.”).
• 2Id.; see also Cariere v. The Kroger Store, 52,846, p. 6 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/14/19), 276 So. 3d 1150, 1154 (“Although not liable for the advancement of costs or as they accrue, an indigent party may ultimately be responsible for the cost of an unsuccessful lawsuit.”).
• 3La. C.C.P. art. 5186 (“If judgment is rendered in favor of the indigent party, the party against whom the judgment is rendered shall be condemned to pay all costs due such officers, who have a privilege on the judgment superior to the rights of the indigent party or his attorney.”).
• 4Id. If an IFP litigant is able to pay the fees immediately, the litigant can avoid having the lien filed in the mortgage records. See Brownell v. Brownell, 2000-1803 (La. App. 3 Cir. 10/3/01), 799 So. 2d 587.
• 5La. C.C.P. art. 1920.
• 6See Herigodt v. Town of Golden Meadow, 2020-0752, pp. 16–17 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/22/21), 321 So. 3d 1004, 1016 (discussing the interplay between Articles 1920 and 5181–88).
• 7Hirstius v. Cleco Corp., 2019-1637, p. 2 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/4/21), 327 So. 3d 518, 519.
• 8Id. at 520.
• 9Id.
• 10Id.
• 11See Stapleton v. Stapleton, 2005-1035, p. 1 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2/1/06), 922 So. 2d 1234, 1235.
• 12See Ford v. Ford, 2009-1494, p. 2 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/24/10), 32 So. 3d 989, 990 (“In the present case, the divorce judgment entered on Ms. Ford’s motion to confirm the default was rendered against Willie Ford, III; thus, Willie Ford, III should have been condemned to pay all costs of the proceedings.”).
• 13Yarls v. Yarls, 2009-1173, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/27/10), 30 So. 3d 1101, 1102.
• 14Id. at 1101 (internal quotations omitted).
• 15Id. at 1102.