IN RE: NAME CHANGE OF SHEIKERA WILLIAMS

Fla. 4th DCA | 2022-03-23
No. 2021-1749
Kuntz, J., Conner, C.J., Forst, J.
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2022) Positive Treatment

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Sheikera Williams appealed the circuit court's denial of her petition for a name change under Florida Statutes § 68.07. The appellate court reversed because the trial court denied a facially sufficient petition without providing any factual basis for its denial.


Holding

Yes. When a court denies a facially sufficient petition for name change, it must provide the factual basis for doing so. The circuit court's summary denial without explanation constituted reversible error.


Headnotes

[1] A circuit court must provide a factual basis when denying a facially sufficient petition for a change of name.

[2] A court errs by denying a name change petition without setting forth a basis for the denial.

Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“When a court denies a facially sufficient petition for name change, the court must provide the factual basis for doing so.”

Establishes the core legal requirement that trial courts must articulate reasons when denying name change petitions that meet statutory requirements

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Williams filed a petition for a name change that satisfied the facial requirements of section 68.07, Florida Statutes. The circuit court denied the pe…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court

KUNTZ, J.

Sheikera Williams appeals the circuit court’s final judgment denying her petition for change of name pursuant to section 68.07, Florida Statutes (2020). We reverse.

According to Williams, the court denied her petition after viewing her criminal background, denying her the opportunity to testify. But there is no transcript of the hearing, so our review is limited to errors on the face of the final judgment. In re Zimmer, 207 So. 3d 1006, 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (citing Monacelli v. Gonzalez, 883 So. 2d 361, 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)).

The requirements for a petition for a name change are found in section 68.07. When a court denies a facially sufficient petition for name change, the court must provide the factual basis for doing so. See In re Zimmer, 207 So. 3d at 1007 (citing Barton v. Cir. Ct. of Nineteenth Jud. Cir., 659 So. 2d 1262, 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)).

Here, the petition facially satisfied the requirements of section 68.07. But the circuit court denied the petition, stating only that the “Petition is Denied. Petitioner shall continue to be hereafter be known [as]” Williams.

The circuit court erred when it denied the petition without setting forth a basis for doing so. See, e.g., In re Zimmer, 207 So. 3d at 1008;

Name Change of Wages v. State, 160 So. 3d 100, 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“As the petition was facially sufficient, the trial court should not have summarily denied it by concluding that [petitioner’s] purpose was fraudulent.”).

We reverse the circuit court’s order and remand for further proceedings. If the circuit court denies the name change on remand, it must set out a factual basis for doing so.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

CONNER, C.J., and FORST, J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw