Turesky v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal May 31, 1950 No. Civ. 17770Published

Before: White

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a superior court's policy requiring one year of state residency to grant a name change petition is arbitrary, lacks legal authority, and constitutes an abuse of judicial discretion.

Issues

Whether a superior court may establish a policy requiring one year of state residency as a prerequisite to granting a petition for change of name.
Whether a writ of mandate is appropriate to compel a court to hear a petition for change of name when the court refuses to act based on an unauthorized policy.

Disposition. Peremptory writ of mandate issued.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“it must be held that the foregoing “established policy” of respondent court is arbitrary, without warrant of law, and an abuse of the rule-making power of said court.”

“Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, commanding respondent court to proceed with a hearing and determination of the petition for change of name filed by petitioner herein.”

[839]

WHITE, P. J.

Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate directing the superior court to hear and determine his petition for change of name. The admitted facts are that on February 15, 1950, petitioner filed a petition for change of name and procured an order to show cause in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County pursuant to sections 1275-1279, inclusive, of the Code of Civil Procedure; that all of the requirements of the aforesaid sections were complied with by petitioner. That on March 21, 1950, said petition came on regularly for hearing before respondent court. That upon evidence appearing that petitioner had not been a resident of the State of California for one year, the matter was continued upon respondent court’s own motion to September 12, 1950, over petitioner’s objection. That at the time and place of said hearing respondent court announced from the bench that a policy had been established by the judge formerly presiding in that department of the court to the effect that a year’s residence in the State of California would be required before the court would act upon any petition for change of name, and for that reason the court refused to hear the petition.

By its answer respondent court alleges that “for many years it has been the established policy of Respondent Court to require residence in the State of California for the period of one year prior to granting a petition for change of name ; that Respondent Court has followed that policy for the reason that within the knowledge and experience of said Court the following classes of persons attempt to change their names upon first arriving in the State:

“1. Persons who are fugitives from justice from other states;

“2. Persons who are attempting to evade their creditors;

“3. Persons who are attempting to evade family responsibilities.

“That the purpose of requiring a year’s residence is to permit a reasonable length of time for law enforcement officers, creditors and dependents to ascertain the whereabouts of applicants for change of name.”

The statutes of this state have not abrogated the common-law right to change one’s name, and resort to legal proceedings to accomplish such change is not necessary. The purpose of the statutory procedure is simply to establish a change of name as a matter of record wherever possible. The purpose and intent of our code sections relating to change

Turesky v. Superior Court

AI Brief

WHITE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief