Court Opinion

ID: 9683860
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:38:29.262768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:50.842980
License: Public Domain

Karen R. Baker, Judge, concurring. I concur in the majority’s decision to reverse and remand this case. However, I write to address the trial court’s rather troubling decision to deny appellant’s request to restore her former name because she chose to seek alimony. The court’s response to appellant’s request, as set forth in the divorce decree, was as follows: The Court finds it is somewhat ironic that [appellant] requested that her name be changed to the name she bore before this marriage, while on the other hand requesting that [appellee] be ordered to pay her alimony. Based upon this Court’s grant of alimony to [appellant] and [appellant’s] request for alimony, the [appellant’s] request for name change is denied. That if the respective attorneys can reach an agreement in this matter, then the Court would be inclined to enter an Order approving the name change, however, if the attorneys cannot agree, then that request is denied by the Court. Appellant does not appeal this portion of the divorce decree, so I find no fault with the majority for not addressing it. However, I believe that the trial court’s mistaken apprehension that appellant may not have her former name restored because she chose to seek alimony should not pass without comment. Nowhere in our case law or statutory law do I find any link between the restoration of a party’s name and an award (or lack of an award) of alimony. The purpose of alimony, as our courts have stated many times, is to rectify, insofar as is reasonably possible, the frequent economic imbalance in the earning power and standard of living of the divorced parties in light of the particular facts of each case. See Powell v. Powell, 82 Ark. App. 17, 110 S.W.3d 290 (2003); Holaway v. Holaway, 70 Ark. App. 240, 16 S.W.3d 302 (2000). Pursuant to that purpose, the trial court ruled that appellant, who has been totally disabled since 1992, should receive alimony. Yet, as the result of seeking that to which she was legally entitled, appellant was denied her reasonable request for a name change. These two matters — alimony and restoration of a former name — are separate and distinct issues with separate and distinct inquiries; a ruling on one has no bearing on the other. Furthermore, our name-change statutes, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 9-2-101 and 102 (Repl. 2002), place no condition on a name change other than that “good reasons” be shown. In fact, our name-change statutes are merely supplementary to the common law, see Stamps v. Rawlins, 297 Ark. 370, 761 S.W.2d 933 (1988), which provides that an adult has the right to change his or her name absent fraud, misrepresentation, or interference with the rights of others. See generally 57 Am. Jur. 2d Name §§ 2, 16 (2d ed. 2001); 65 C.J.S. Names § 21 (2000). Appellant, as an adult acting without a fraudulent purpose, was entitled to have her name changed as she requested, whether or not she sought an award of alimony. I recognize that Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-318 (Repl. 2002) provides that the trial court “may” restore the wife’s former name. However, where fraud or other illegal purpose is absent, I cannot conceive of a situation where it would not be an abuse of discretion to deny a name-change request in a divorce action. Certainly, a wife should not be forced to effectively “purchase” her former name by foregoing the alimony to which she may be legally entitled, nor should her name be used as a bargaining chip in negotiations of monetary matters, as the decree suggests.