Court Opinion

ID: 9719129
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:42:59.599625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:04.719569
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Prentice, J.
I dissent from the majority opinion because I see no mandate in the statute to grant the petition. The first section of the statute1 provides that the circuit court *156“may” change names. (Emphasis added). After providing for the procedure to be followed, the fourth section of the statute provides that the court “shall proceed to hear and determine said petition and make such order and decree therein as to such court shall seem just and reasonable.” (Emphasis added). This language makes it clear that the Legislature intended to grant a privilege where circumstances warranted.
It is not only the individual who must be concerned with his name. The state, its institutions and society in general must also deal with it. I shudder to think of the governmental and business records that must be revised and the confusion that will ultimately result, merely to accommodate the appellant’s most unorthodox caprice.
There is no constitutional or inherent right to compel legal sanction of a change of name, notwithstanding the right at common law to assume a new name so long as it is not for a fraudulent or illegal purpose. The mere assumption of a different name, as opposed to legal sanction thereof, casts little if any burden upon others, because others are free to recognize it or not, as they wish. This is not the case when the change has been given the sanction of a court decree.
Recognizing that there are circumstances under which a legally sanctioned change of name may be warranted, notwithstanding its attendant burdens, the Legislature provided for such. In so doing, it placed the responsibility for making the determination of “reasonableness” in the circuit courts. It is clear to me that a petitioner, under the statute, should have the burden of establishing that it is “just and reasonable” that the petition be granted and not merely that the petitioner desires it and is without fraudulent intent, as the majority holds. Otherwise, why is a hearing provided? Surely the *157words “just and reasonable” encompass something more than the absence of fraud. Further, in the absence of second-party intervention, how is a fraudulent intent to be discerned? Under this decision, where is the court’s discretion, if a petitioner says, “I want to change my name and I have no fraudulent intent?”
The decision of the trial court resulted from the exercise of sound discretion, and not abuse. It was simply a determination that the reasons of the petitioner for desiring a change of name did not warrant the inconvenience that would thereby be inflicted upon the state and society. This was a “just and reasonable” determination, because the petitioner’s stated reasons for desiring the change indicate nothing but whimsey and an unusual psychological quirk. I know of no reason why the law should be concerned with such trivia.
Petitioner’s stated reasons for desiring the change of name were as follows:
“1. Marriage is an equal partnership and to require one partner to give up a name which has been her identity for 20 years, against her will, and not to require it of the male partner places additional burdens on the female which negates the equality of marriage.
“2. Requiring a female to mandatorily change her surname is an affront to her dignity.
“3. Impairment of individuality when dealing with the public.
“4. Impairment of professional pursuits—studied and trained as a licensed practical nurse under the surname of Howard, but now must practice as Hauptly.
“5. Diminution of self-confidence.
“6. Lack of recognition in theatrical profession in that petitioner performed under the name of Howard prior to marriage, and intends to pursue in the future, however, the use of the name ‘Hauptly’ will vitiate the past recognition of the name Howard and in addition is phonetically displeasing for theatrical purposes.
*158“7. The name ‘Hauptly’ masks the ethnic heritage of petitioner which is English-Irish.
“8. Petitioner’s work as a licensed practical nurse requires the wearing of a name tag with the name ‘Hauptly’ which has caused confusion in pronunciation and family heritage in that petitioner feels she has been deprived of the opportunity to discuss her own heritage.
“9. Petitioner is contemplating pursuit toward a legal degree and feels that her ultimate legal career will be seriously affected in that her achievements and work will not be judged on her own merits but on the relationship with her husband since he will also be practicing law.
“10. To be able to use the name of her choice would make petitioner a happier person and thereby improve her relationships not only with her family but with the rest of the public.
“11. Petitioner is not presently in default of any debt or obligation; has never filed nor is contemplating any action in bankruptcy; that the granting of her petition would not serve to deceive or defraud any person or organization or deprive the same of any right, property or any other thing of value to which said person or organization might be entitled.”
I do not think that the State’s counsel was warranted in referring to the appellant in his brief as an “odd ball.” However, assuming that her viewpoint upon surnames is a true reflection of her personality, it is apparent to me that she is one of a very small minority.
It is fortunate that most people are content with their legal names, because today’s decision mandates the courts to change any person’s name upon petition, absent a showing of fraudulent intent. A husband may change his name, notwithstanding his wife’s objections; and she may change her’s without his consent. A child may change his name to something different from that of either parent, although he may be a minor residing with and dependent upon them. The village drunk may legally change his name to that of *159the circuit court judge, and the village whore may change her’s to that of the judge’s wife. It seems to me that it could become very difficult to keep track of people and very strange indeed that the law should have to sanction such unjust and unreasonable results, notwithstanding that the authorizing statute provides only for an order that seems “just and reasonable.”
Note.—Reported at 312 N.E.2d 857.

. CHAPTER 6 Change of Name.
34-4-6-1 [3-801]. Petition to circuit court.—The circuit courts in the several counties of this state may change the names of natural persons on application by petition. [2 R.S. 1852, ch. 5, § 1, p. 238; Acts 1969, ch. 41, § 1, p. 32.]
34-4-6-2 [3-802], Petition, where filed.—Such petition may be filed with the circuit court of the county in which such person resides. [2 R.S. 1852, ch. 5, § 2, p. 238; Acts 1969, ch. 41, § 2, p. 32.]
34-4-6-3 [3-803]. Notice by publication.—Upon a petition being filed for such change, the applicant shall give notice thereof by three [3] weekly publications in some newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the county wherein said petition is filed in court, or, if no newspaper be printed therein, in a newspaper printed and published nearest thereto in some adjoining county, the last of which weekly publications shall be published at least thirty [30] days prior to the day when such petition shall be heard as therein indicated. [2 R.S. 1852, ch. 5, § 3, p. 238; Acts 1943, ch. 209, § 1, p. 619.]
34-4-6-4 [3-804]. Publication, proof, copy or order filed.—Proof of the publication required in this act [34-4-6-1—34-4-6-5] shall be made by filing a copy of such published notice, verified by the affidavit of a disinterested person, and when such proof of such publication is made, the court shall proceed to hear and determine said petition and make such order and decree therein as to such court shall seem just and reasonable. [2 R.S. 1852, ch. 5, § 4, p. 238; Acts 1905, ch. 151, § 1, p. 447; 1969, ch. 41, § 3, p. 32.
34-4-6-5 [3-805]. Copy of decree as evidence.—A copy of the decree of such court, changing the name of any natural person, *156certified under the seal of such court by the clerk thereof, shall be sufficient evidence of the name of such person, and of such a change having been made, in any court of this state. [2 B.S. 1852, ch. 5, § 5, p. 238; Acts 1969, ch. 41, § 4, p. 32.]