Hayes v. Medioli (In re Name Change John Doe)

• Decision Date: 31 March 2021
• Docket Number: Docket No. 47918
• Citation: 484 P.3d 195,168 Idaho 511
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Parties: IN RE: Name Change of John DOE, A Child Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age. Dena Michelle Hayes, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Massimo Medioli, Respondent.

168 Idaho 511

484 P.3d 195

IN RE: Name Change of John DOE, A Child Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age.Dena Michelle Hayes, Petitioner-Appellant,

v.Massimo Medioli, Respondent.

Docket No. 47918

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, February 2021 Term.

Filed: March 31, 2021

Ludwig Shoufler Miller Johnson, LLP, Boise, attorneys for Appellant. Daniel Miller argued.

Cosho Humphrey, LLP, Boise, attorneys for Respondent. Mackenzie Whatcott argued.

BEVAN, Chief Justice

Massimo Medioli petitioned the magistrate court to change his minor child's name. The child's mother, Dena Hayes, objected. The magistrate court granted Medioli's petition finding the name change to be "right and proper," as provided by Idaho Code section 7-804. Hayes appealed to the district court. The district court affirmed. The district court awarded Medioli attorney fees pursuant to Idaho Code section 12-121. Hayes appeals the district court's decision and fee award. We affirm on the merits, but reverse the district court's award of attorney fees.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Hayes and Medioli have one minor child together, Alexander, who was born on December 3, 2015. Hayes and Medioli were not married when Alexander was born, nor were they subsequently married. Alexander's birth certificate lists his name as "Alexander Thomas Hayes." Hayes and Medioli's relationship deteriorated soon after Alexander's birth and on April 2, 2018, a magistrate court granted Hayes sole legal custody of Alexander.

On May 15, 2018, Medioli, in a proceeding separate from the custody case, petitioned to change Alexander's name from "Alexander Thomas Hayes" to "Alexander Thomas Medioli-Hayes." Hayes objected. The magistrate court heard the parties' arguments and testimony about the name change on March 25, 2019. Ruling from the bench, the magistrate court found:

And I understand what everybody is saying. You want the child to have your name. You don't want the child to have his name. But I haven't heard anything today that convinces me that changing the child's name so that it includes his father's name is not right and proper....

And I'm not convinced that anything I've heard would be detrimental to the child. In fact, I believe that having the name may give the child an increase in his socioeconomic status and allow further bonding between father and son.

....

So based upon the information I've heard today and my reasoning that I don't believe that anything that I've heard today is not right and proper ... I am hereby changing the child's name.... I am changing the name to Alexander Thomas Medioli Hayes.¹

The court entered its written order changing Alexander's name to "Alexander Thomas Medioli Hayes" on March 28, 2019.

Hayes appealed the magistrate's order to the district court. The district court affirmed, also finding Hayes failed to provide cogent legal argument justifying a reversal of the magistrate's decision. The court awarded Medioli attorney fees pursuant to Idaho Code section 12-121. Hayes timely appealed the district court's decision and attorney fee award.

II. ISSUES ON APPEAL

1. Whether the district court erred in affirming the magistrate court's order granting Medioli's petition to change Alexander's name?

2. Whether the district court erred in awarding Medioli attorney fees pursuant to Idaho Code section 12-121 ?

3. Whether Medioli is entitled to attorney fees on appeal?

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

"On appeal of a decision rendered by a district court while acting in its intermediate appellate capacity, this Court directly reviews the district court's decision." Hamberlin v. Bradford , 165 Idaho 947, 951, 454 P.3d 589, 593 (2019) (quoting Gordon v. Hedrick , 159 Idaho 604, 608, 364 P.3d 951, 955 (2015) ). In reviewing the district court's decision, the standard is as follows:

The Supreme Court reviews the trial court (magistrate) record to determine whether there is substantial and competent evidence to support the magistrate's findings of fact and whether the magistrate's conclusions of law follow from those findings. If those findings are so supported and the conclusions follow therefrom and if the district court affirmed the magistrate's decision, we affirm the district court's decision as a matter of procedure.

Ellis v. Ellis , 167 Idaho 1, 6–7, 467 P.3d 365, 370–71 (2020) (quoting Pelayo v. Pelayo , 154 Idaho 855, 858–59, 303 P.3d 214, 217–18 (2013) ). Thus, "this Court does not review the decision of the magistrate court. Rather, we are procedurally bound to affirm or reverse the decisions of the district court." Id . at 7, 467 P.3d at 371 (internal quotations omitted).

IV. ANALYSIS

The district court affirmed the magistrate court's order granting Medioli's petition to change Alexander's name. The district court also awarded Medioli attorney fees pursuant to Idaho Code section 12-121 after finding Hayes' appeal was frivolous. For the reasons below, we affirm the district court's decision affirming the magistrate court's order granting Medioli's petition to change Alexander's name to include "Medioli." However, we reverse and vacate the district court's attorney fee award.

A. The district court's decision affirming the magistrate court's order granting Medioli's petition to change Alexander's name was correct because the magistrate acted within its discretion in finding the name change to be "right and proper," as required by Idaho Code section 7-804.

The district court affirmed the magistrate court's order granting Medioli's petition to change Alexander's name. First, the district court set forth the applicable standard of review as an abuse of discretion under Idaho Code section 7-804 and In re Toelkes , 97 Idaho 406, 407, 545 P.2d 1012, 1013 (1976). Next, the district court found the magistrate did not abuse its discretion by granting Medioli's petition to change Alexander's name because the court recognized the issue as one of discretion, applied the legal standard of "right and proper" articulated in section 7-804, acted consistently with that standard by considering factors such as Alexander's socioeconomic status and whether the change would further Alexander's bond with Medioli, and reached its ultimate conclusion by the exercise of reason. See Lunneborg v. My Fun Life , 163 Idaho 856, 863, 421 P.3d 187, 194 (2018) (pinpointing the 4-prong discretionary standard of review). The district court also found the magistrate court did not misapply the burden of proof or err in considering certain factors in its decision.

Hayes argues the district court erred. First, Hayes argues the phrase "right and proper," as articulated in Idaho Code section 7-804, is ambiguous. Hayes asserts that a trial court, in a disputed name change case involving a minor child, should apply the best interest of the child standard in determining what is "right and proper." As a result, Hayes argues a court's determination should give more weight to who has sole legal custody of the child. As for the magistrate court's purported errors, Hayes argues the magistrate court improperly placed the burden on Hayes to establish that the name change would be detrimental to Alexander. Hayes also argues the magistrate court's findings, that Alexander's socioeconomic status would improve and Alexander and Medioli's bond would strengthen if the court granted the name change, were unsupported.

Idaho's courts have authority to grant applications for change of names. I.C. § 7-801. Such applications

must be heard at such time during term as the court may appoint, and objections may be filed by any person who can, in such objections, show to the court good reason against such change of name. On the hearing the court may examine, upon oath, any of the petitioners, remonstrants or other persons touching the application, and may make an order changing the name or dismissing the application, as to the court may seem right and proper .

I.C. § 7-804 (emphasis added).

Section 7-804 provides that a court "may make an order changing the name or dismissing the application," leaving the decision to the sound discretion of the court. See In re Idaho Workers Comp. Bd. , 167 Idaho 13, 24, 467 P.3d 377, 388 (2020) ; see also Toelkes , 97 Idaho at 407, 545 P.2d at 1013 (stating the statute "confers a wide discretion on the district court in determining whether or not a change of name should be granted[.]"). When a court reviews an alleged abuse of discretion, the court asks whether the lower court: "(1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion; (3) acted consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (4) reached its decision by the exercise of reason." Lunneborg , 163 Idaho at 863, 421 P.3d at 194. "An abuse of discretion is found when the magistrate court's findings are clearly erroneous such that the court's findings are not based on substantial and competent evidence." Kelly v. Kelly , 165 Idaho 716, 723, 451 P.3d 429, 436 (2019) (internal quotations omitted).

1. Section 7-804 is unambiguous; trial courts are not required to apply the best interest of the child standard in disputed name change cases involving minor children.

Generally, in decisions regarding children, "[a]n abuse of discretion occurs when the evidence is insufficient to support a magistrate's conclusion that the interests and welfare of the children would be best served by the magistrate court's order." Kelly , 165 Idaho at 723, 451 P.3d at 436 (internal quotations omitted). In determining the best interest of the child, courts must consider "all relevant factors" listed in Idaho Code section 32-717, among others. However, section 7-804 is not a statute related solely to children; instead, section 7-804 governs name changes generally. Hayes advocates that in disputed name change cases involving minor children, trial courts should apply the best interest of the child standard in determining whether the name change is "right and proper." We disa...