Marshall v. State, T--412

• Decision Date: 15 October 1974
• Docket Number: No. T--412,T--412
• Citation: 301 So.2d 477
• Parties: Linda Christine LaSeur MARSHALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 477

301 So.2d 477

Linda Christine LaSeur MARSHALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. T--412.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 15, 1974.

Stewart E. Parsons, Tallahassee, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

JOHNSON, Judge.

Appellant, married woman, filed a petition with the Leon County Circuit Court seeking to establish her maiden or birth name as her legal name even though she continued her marriage with her husband. After an amended petition was filed, the trial court entered an order denying the petition, finding that:

'Petitioner is a married woman and intends to remain married and living with her husband who will continue using his surname of Marshall. This the Court finds could be misleading and is contrary to public policy. There are is contrary cases holding that a married woman's name is that of her husband.'

We reverse. There is nothing in Florida Statutes, § 62.031 which prohibits a married woman from establishing her birth name as her legal name even though her marriage relationship continues. We do not find such a change of name to be misleading or contrary to public policy, so long as the statistical data required by the statute is given, as well as a verification that the petition is not being filed for ulterior or illegal purposes nor will the change of name invade the property rights of others. ¹

While we hereby hold that the appellant has a legal right to change her name, we do find that the petition should be amended to more specifically provide the statistical data required by F.S. § 62.031. For example, § 62.031(2)(e) requires the petition to show the petitioner's occupation and where petitioner S employed. The present petition merely states that petitioner is by education and training a neuro-histologist and that her only place of employment in the past five years has been at Florida State University. Also § 62.031(4) requires the Clerk, upon the filing of a final judgment, to file a report giving sufficient information to identify the original birth certificate of the petitioner. In a county as large as Cook County, Illinois, this could more easily be accomplished by attaching to the petition a copy of the petitioner's birth certificate or at least the number thereof.

In conclusion, we reverse the trial court's order denying the petition and remand this cause for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.

Reversed and remanded.

SPECTOR, Acting C.J., concurs.

BOYER, J., specially concurring.

BOYER, Judge (concurring specially).

Although I am philosophically opposed to that which the petitioner is seeking to accomplish, I nevertheless most reluctantly concur in the opinion of the majority. However, I do so only because it appears that the legislature has specifically anticipated such a proceeding by its passage of Florida Statute 62.031(2)(c). That statute clearly provides for the change of name of married persons. When construing that statute with Florida Statute 62.031(5) it becomes apparent that the former anticipates the change of name of one married person without the necessity of the changing of the name of his or her spouse.

It seems to me that this procedure is but another step toward destruction of the family, the basic unit in our society. However, matters of public policy are uniquely the prerogative of the legislature in promulgating legislation and once that branch of government has determined the public policy, we as a separate coordinate branch are without authority to determine...