AMBER NAVARRO v. MARTIN NAVARRO (2026)

Herein, plaintiff/appellant, Amber Navarro, appeals a portion of the trial court's June 12, 2025 judgment, which granted Ms. Navarro a divorce from defendant/appellee, Martin Navarro, but which also cast Ms. Navarro with all costs associated with the proceeding. Ms. Navarro now appeals, claiming the trial court erred in assigning costs to her, despite previously praying for and subsequently being granted, pauper status. In this memorandum opinion, we reverse the portion of the trial court's judgment which cast costs to Ms. Navarro and, instead, cast them to defendant/appellee, Martin Navarro.

On December 2, 2024, Ms. Navarro filed a petition for divorce from her husband, Mr. Navarro on the grounds that they had continuously lived separate and apart for a period exceeding six months. See La. Civ. Code art. 103. Therein, Ms. Navarro specifically requested to proceed in forma pauperis. In connection with her petition, Ms. Navarro completed an in forma pauperis affidavit, disclosing her various financial assets. On February 21, 2025, a pauper hearing took place, whereby the trial court granted Ms. Navarro's request and ordered the clerk of court to serve the divorce petition on Mr. Navarro. Mr. Navarro, unrepresented by counsel, then submitted an answer to Ms. Navarro's petition for divorce on April 17, 2025, and agreed with all her stated allegations. At the divorce hearing, Mr. Navarro did not appear and, after an examination by the trial court, Ms. Navarro was granted a divorce from Mr. Navarro. However, when discussing court costs, the trial court stated, “I'm not going to cast Mr. Navarro with the costs of these proceedings. I'm going to cast, Ms. Navarro, the plaintiff, for the costs of these proceedings.” When objected to by Ms. Navarro's counsel, the trial court stated, “[t]he statute allows for her to proceed without payment of costs in advance. It does not relieve her of the obligation to pay the costs.” A judgment to this effect was signed on June 12, 2025, granting Ms. Navarro's divorce, but casting her with court costs.

We agree with Ms. Navarro that the trial court's decision to cast her with costs was error. The record on appeal is devoid of any evidence that Ms. Navarro's right to proceed in forma pauperis was ever traversed or rescinded. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 5184. Further, we note that, as a general matter, La. Code Civ. P. art. 1920 gives the trial court equitable discretion to tax costs against any party. Specifically, article 1920 states, in part: “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, the court may render judgment for costs, or any part thereof, against any party, as it may consider equitable.” The case before us involves one of those exceptions. The provisions of La. Code Civ. P. art. 5186(C) unequivocally preclude the sharing of court costs by an indigent party, in whose favor judgment is rendered, pursuant to the following language: “[i]f 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 to a public officer, who shall have a privilege on the judgment superior to the rights of the indigent party or his attorney.”

In this instance, the trial court abused its discretion when it cast Ms. Navarro with the court costs incurred in her pursuit of the divorce decree. See Cage v. Cage, 99-2072 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/22/00), 809 So.2d 144, 145; Snowton v. Snowton, 2009-0600 (La. App. 4th Cir. 9/30/09), 22 So.3d 1111, 1112-1113. Accordingly, the portion of the trial court's June 12, 2025 judgment, which cast Ms. Navarro with all costs associated with the court proceedings resulting in the judgment of divorce, is reversed. Defendant, Martin Navarro, is cast with all court costs associated with the divorce decree. Costs of this appeal are also assessed against the defendant, Martin Navarro. We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Uniform Rules - Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.1(B).

REVERSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART; RENDERED.

WOLFE, J.