ACTON VERCHER v. DEVIN GEORGE IN HIS CAPACITY AS STATE REGISTRAR AND BUREAU DIRECTOR OFFICE OF VITAL STATISTICS (2026)

In this suit by the plaintiff/appellee, Acton Vercher, against the defendant/appellant, Jemimah Mikel ¹ , in her capacity as State Registrar and Bureau Director of the Office of Vital Statistics, the Twenty-Second Judicial District Court rendered an ex parte judgment to make a foreign judgment executory in favor of Mr. Vercher. For the following reasons, we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 14, 2025, Mr. Vercher filed an “Ex Parte Petition to Make Foreign Judgment Executory and Gender Marker (Sex) change,” naming the District Attorney of St. Tammany Parish and the State Registrar of Louisiana as defendants. In the petition, Mr. Vercher alleged that on October 10, 2023, an order was issued in the state of Massachusetts, granting a change in the petitioner's name from Victoria Camille Vercher to Acton Hemlock Vercher. Mr. Vercher attached the foreign judgment to his petition as an exhibit and Mr. Vercher requested the district court of St. Tammany Parish to enforce the foreign judgment pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 2541.

Mr. Vercher further requested that his birth certificate be amended to have its designation of sex changed from female to male, since he had undergone surgery and medical treatment to become an anatomical male. Mr. Vercher attached an affidavit from the doctor who performed the surgery, which affirmed that he had been changed anatomically from a female to a male. The district court signed the ex parte order on May 14, 2025, making the foreign judgment executory in the state of Louisiana, and ordered that the Office of Vital Statistics and the Clerk of Court amend its records to reflect Mr. Vercher's name and sex change.

On July 17, 2025, Ms. Mickel, in her capacity as the Louisiana State Registrar and Bureau Director of the Office of Vital Statistics, filed a suspensive appeal of the aforementioned order, which was served on the State Registrar on July 11, 2025. In her brief, the State Registrar submitted four assignments of error:

1. The district court erred by rendering and signing a final judgment or order that, as the record indicates, was not the product of a final summary or ordinary disposition held contradictorily against the State Registrar and was essentially an ex parte judgment.

2. The district court erred by rendering and signing a final judgment that, as the record indicates, does not appear to be based on the consideration, at a hearing, of the evidentiary proof required under La. R.S. 40:62(C).

3. The district court erred by allowing the petitioner to submit a matter that La. R.S. 40:62(B) requires to proceed contradictorily against the State Registrar, for final consideration, in a procedurally flawed ex parte manner, rather than through presentation of the required evidence at a contradictory hearing.

4. The district court erred by rendering and signing a final judgment or order that, based on the record and pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 2002(A)(2), appears to be a nullity.

DISCUSSION

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 2541 provides the procedure by which a foreign judgment may be made executory in this state:

A. A party seeking recognition or execution by a Louisiana court of a judgment or decree of a court of the United States or a territory thereof, or of any other state, or of any foreign country may bring an ordinary proceeding against the judgment debtor in the proper Louisiana court, to have the judgment or decree recognized and made the judgment of the Louisiana court.

B. A duly authenticated copy of the judgment or decree must be annexed to the petition.

C. A judgment, decree, or order of a court of the United States or any other court that is entitled to full faith and credit in this state may also be enforced pursuant to [La.] R.S. 13:4241.2

Paragraph (A) of the article states that if a party wishes to make a foreign judgment executory in the state of Louisiana, it is to be done through ordinary proceeding. Ordinary proceedings are governed by Book II of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, and La. C.C.P. art. 851 states that ordinary proceedings “are to be used in the district courts in all cases, except as otherwise provided by law.” Additionally, La. R.S. 40:62 provides the more specific procedure for the issuance of a new birth certificate after an anatomical change of sex by surgery. Paragraph (B) of that statute states that such suits shall be filed contradictorily against the State Registrar.

As guidance, we look to Patterson v. Williams, 2024-0711 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/13/25), 414 So.3d 789, where the plaintiff filed a verified petition for name and sex change and for issuance of a new birth certificate. The State Registrar filed an answer, and the plaintiff filed a motion and order to fix the matter for trial, requesting that the matter be submitted on briefs. However, the motion did not state whether the State Registrar had agreed or objected to submitting the matter on briefs. The plaintiff also filed a trial memorandum in support of the petition without a certificate of service on the State Registrar. The district court rendered a judgment on the pleadings, stating no trial was necessary. Id., at 790.

The Fourth Circuit reversed the action of the district court, finding that the record was devoid of any minute entry or transcript to indicate that any form of hearing was held, that the disposition of the matter took place essentially ex parte, and that the proceedings did not conform to the specific contradictory requirements of La. R.S. 40:60(B). The Fourth Circuit cited the Third Circuit case Arnaud v. George, 2023-0744 (La. App. 3 Cir. 4/24/24), 3 87 So.3d 818, which addressed procedural irregularities in a similar matter by vacating the district court's judgment and remanding for further proceedings. See Patterson, 414 So.3d at 792.

Patterson went on to address the evidentiary requirements of La. R.S. 40:62(C), which also suggest that an evidentiary hearing is required to dispose of cases where:

[T]he petitioner was properly diagnosed as a transsexual or pseudo-hermaphrodite, that sex reassignment or corrective surgery has been properly performed upon the petitioner, and that as a result of such surgery and subsequent medical treatment the anatomical structure of the sex of the petitioner has been changed to a sex other than that which is stated on the original birth certificate of the petitioner.

The Fourth Circuit found that the statutory language “requires that the proof deemed necessary by the presiding court should be in the form of evidence taken, by the court, within the context of a hearing.” The Fourth Circuit concluded that “some form of hearing or trial that is conducted by summary or ordinary procedure is necessary.” Patterson, 414 So.3d at 792.

We now follow Patterson, holding that the procedures of La. C.C.P. and La. R.S. 40:62 were not adhered to in the instant case, and the district court improperly granted an ex parte judgment of name and sex change without conducting the required contradictory hearing. In following Patterson and Arnaud, we vacate the judgment pursuant to La. R.S. 2002(A)(2), as the record does not contain any certificate of service upon the State Registrar for notice of trial, nor does the record contain any evidence that a contradictory hearing took place.

We are cognizant of La. R.S. 13:4242, which states that any properly authenticated foreign judgment may be made executory by an ex parte proceeding. In this case, however, the State Registrar's due process rights were circumvented by the ex parte action. The State Registrar was effectively denied its day in court, and by La. C.C.P. art. 2004, the district court's ex parte judgment was obtained through the ill practice of non-service on the State Registrar and could also be annulled on those grounds. See Joseph R. Keenan Co. v. White House Apartments-Donald S. Moffatt, 517 So.2d 1141, 1145 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1987), writ denied, 520 So.2d 750 (La. 1988).

DECREE

The judgment of the Twenty-Second Judicial District Court in favor of the appellee, Acton Vercher, is vacated, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. All costs of this appeal are assessed to Mr. Vercher.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   At the time of the filing of the instant appeal, Ms. Mickel was the acting State Registrar of Vital Statistics.

2.   Louisiana Revised Statutes 13:4241 defines a “foreign judgment” as “any judgment, decree, or order of a court of the United States or of any other court which is entitled to full faith and credit in this state.”

LANIER, J.