From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Smith

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit
May 4, 1989
543 So. 2d 608 (La. Ct. App. 1989)

Opinion

No. 20955-CW.

May 4, 1989.

APPEAL FROM SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, MADISON PARISH, STATE OF LOUISIANA, HONORABLE CHARLES R. BRACKIN, J.

Williams Williams by Cassandra Butler, Tallulah, for applicant.

LeRoy Smith, Jr., Tallulah, for respondent.

Before MARVIN, NORRIS and LINDSAY, JJ.


WRIT GRANTED AND MADE PEREMPTORY.

Under the scheme of CCP Arts. 5181-5188, an indigent litigant who is granted the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis is relieved of paying court costs in advance or as they accrue or furnishing security therefor. Art. 5181 A; Benjamin v. National Super Markets, Inc., 351 So.2d 138 (La. 1977).

A court may subject the indigent litigant to continuous security to prevent abuse of the privilege. City Stores, Inc. v. Peterson, 263 La. 577, 268 So.2d 662 (1972). An indigent litigant may be held liable for costs if the judgment is rendered and assesses costs against the indigent litigant. If the judgment is in favor of the indigent litigant, the adverse litigant shall be condemned to pay all costs and the indigent litigant may not be assessed costs. Spence v. Spence, 465 So.2d 155 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1985).

Except as provided in B of Art. 5181, an indigent litigant may proceed without paying costs in advance or as they accrue or furnishing security therefor. The B exception contemplates that only a person who is imprisoned for the commission of a felony may be required to pay reduced costs under statutory financial guidelines. See also Art. 5181 C.

The adverse litigant in the pending action was personally served and was assessed with costs in the judgment that granted the indigent litigant-applicant a preliminary injunction. Other costs should be assessed in the judgment on the merits as Art. 5186 contemplates.

We recognize that a court has inherent authority to control its proceedings by monitoring litigants and costs. CCP Art. 191. See Baudoin v. Hebert, 463 So.2d 78 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1985). The authority of a court to require an indigent litigant proceeding in forma pauperis to make periodical nominal deposits to defray costs, however, is limited by guidelines of Art. 5181 to those litigants who are imprisoned for the commission of a felony.

A litigant such as the applicant who has been granted the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis is statutorily relieved of paying court costs either in advance or as they accrue or furnishing security therefor. Art. 5181 A.

We therefore reverse the trial court's ruling that requires applicant to pay to the clerk of the trial court "$10 per month . . . until costs are paid in full."

REVERSED AND REMANDED.


Summaries of

Smith v. Smith

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit
May 4, 1989
543 So. 2d 608 (La. Ct. App. 1989)
Case details for

Smith v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:LINDA HARRIS SMITH, APPLICANT, v. RICHARD SMITH, JR., RESPONDENT

Court:Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit

Date published: May 4, 1989

Citations

543 So. 2d 608 (La. Ct. App. 1989)

Citing Cases

Porter v. Porter

She cites La. C.C.P. art. 5186: “If judgment is rendered in favor of the indigent party, the party against…

McCoy v. St. ex Rel. Jones

A court may subject the indigent litigant to continuous scrutiny to prevent abuse of the privilege. Smith v.…