IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2022 ND 11

In the Matter of the Name Change of Shane Lance Yates

No. 20210193

In the Matter of the Name Change of Amy Jo Yates

No. 20210194

Appeals from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, 

the Honorable Stephannie N. Stiel, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Opinion of the Court by Tufte, Justice.

Shane L. Yates, self-represented, Fargo, N.D., appellant; submitted on brief.

Amy Jo Yates, self-represented, Fargo, N.D., appellant; submitted on brief.

FILED 

IN THE OFFICE OF THE 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

JANUARY 6, 2022 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
1

Matter of Shane Lance Yates

No. 20210193

and

Matter of Amy Jo Yates

No. 20210194

Tufte, Justice.

[¶1] Shane Lance Yates and Amy Jo Yates (“Petitioners”) appeal district 

court orders denying their petitions for name changes and requests for 

reconsideration. They argue the district court erred in concluding their current 

names and the names requested were the same names. We affirm.

I

[¶2] Shane Lance Yates and Amy Jo Yates petitioned the district court to 

change their respective names from “SHANE LANCE YATES” (in all 

uppercase letters) to “Shane Lance Yates” and “AMY JO YATES” (in all 

uppercase letters) to “Amy Jo Yates.” They requested the changes to “terminate 

the guardian-ward relationship and to distinguish from all other aliases, 

correct any mistakes, errors or identity confusion that exists in relation to the 

ALL CAPS STATE CREATED NAME.” The district court denied the petitions

under res judicata because the Petitioners had previously filed identical name 

change petitions, which had been denied by the court, and “[f]or the reasons 

set forth in the attached orders.” The attached orders included the prior orders 

denying the Petitioners’ identical name changes, and concluded they did not 

seek to change from one name to another and the requested change would not 

affect any action or legal proceeding or other right, title, or interest, as was the 

stated purpose. They requested reconsideration, arguing res judicata did not 

bar their petitions. The court denied the requests for reconsideration.

II

[¶3] The Petitioners argue the district court erred in concluding their current 

names and the names requested were the same names. We review the court’s 

denial of a name change for an abuse of discretion. Matter of Mees, 465 N.W.2d 
2

172, 173 (N.D. 1991). A court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, 

unreasonable, or unconscionable manner. Id. at 173-74.

[¶4] The district court has the authority to change a person’s name under 

N.D.C.C. § 32-28-01. Any person desiring to change that person’s name may 

file a petition in the district court, providing that the petitioner is a citizen or 

permanent resident alien, the petitioner has been a resident of the county for 

at least six months, and the petitioner provides the reason for the name change 

and the name requested. N.D.C.C. § 32-28-02(1). The court shall order the 

name change unless the allegations in the petition are untruthful, the 

petitioner fails to give a thirty-day notice in the county newspaper, or there is 

no “proper and reasonable cause” for the name change. N.D.C.C. § 32-28-02(3). 

“Proper and reasonable cause does not exist if the court determines that the 

request for a name change is made to defraud or mislead, is not made in good 

faith, will cause injury to an individual, or will compromise public safety.” Id.

“Any change of name under the provisions of this chapter in no manner shall 

affect or alter any action or legal proceedings then pending, or any right, title, 

or interest whatsoever.” N.D.C.C. § 32-28-04.

[¶5] We have said that “a name is a word or combination of words by which 

an individual is known or designated.” Petition of Dengler, 246 N.W.2d 758, 

761 (N.D. 1976). In Dengler, we concluded the name change statute 

“contemplates a change from one name to another, and not a change from a 

name to a number.” Id. at 759, Syl. 3. Relying on Dengler, the district court 

concluded the Petitioners are not requesting a change from one name to 

another name. On this record, we agree. In effect, the Petitioners request a 

change in the capitalization of their names from all capital letters to initial 

capital letters followed by lowercase letters. Petitioners have offered no 

authority or reasoned argument that there is any legal significance to the 

capitalization of their names. The district court did not abuse its discretion in 

denying the petitions.

III

[¶6] The Petitioners also appeal from the orders denying their requests for 

reconsideration. North Dakota law does not formally recognize motions to 
3

reconsider; however, motions for reconsideration may be treated as motions to 

alter or amend a judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j), or motions for relief from 

a judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Zepeda v. Cool, 2021 ND 146, ¶ 12, 963 

N.W.2d 282. We will not reverse the district court’s denial of a motion for 

reconsideration absent an abuse of discretion. Id.

[¶7] The Petitioners do not identify either Rule 59(j) or 60(b) in their requests 

for reconsideration, nor do they otherwise specify applicable grounds for relief 

from the orders as provided in Rule 60(b). They argue res judicata did not bar 

their petitions, which was a separate and independent reason for the district 

court’s denial. Relying upon its previous rulings that no actual name changes 

were being sought and no rights would be affected by the name changes, 

the court denied the Petitioners’ requests for reconsideration. Because we 

concluded the court did not err in denying the name change petitions on the 

merits, we need not reach whether res judicata also barred the petitions. Thus, 

the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the requests for 

reconsideration.

IV

[¶8] We affirm the district court orders denying the petitions for name 

changes and requests for reconsideration.

[¶9] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.

Gerald W. VandeWalle

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jerod E. Tufte