In re Johnson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

In re Johnson

259 So. 3d 133

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 21, 2018

DocketNo. 4D18-695

StatusPublished

This text of 259 So. 3d 133 (In re Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Johnson, 259 So. 3d 133 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The petitioner appeals the circuit court's order denying his petition for a name change. The petitioner argues the circuit court erred in two respects: (1) by denying his facially sufficient petition without setting forth a factual basis for what appears, from the face of the order, to have been the circuit court's conclusion that he sought the name change for an ulterior or illegal purpose; and (2) by denying his request to have a court reporter record the hearing.

We agree with both arguments. See In re Zimmer , 207 So.3d 1006, 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) ("Where a trial court denies a facially sufficient petition [for name change], the factual basis for doing so must be set forth in its order."); Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.535(b) ("Any proceeding shall be reported on the request of any party.").

We reverse and remand for a new hearing before a different judge, as the prior judge has since left the bench.

Reversed and remanded for new hearing.

Gerber, C.J., Warner and Forst, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The petitioner appeals the circuit court's order denying his petition for a name change. The petitioner argues the circuit court erred in two respects: (1) by denying his facially sufficient petition without setting forth a factual basis for what appears, from the face of the order, to have been the circuit court's conclusion that he sought the name change for an ulterior or illegal purpose; and (2) by denying his request to have a court reporter record the hearing.

We agree with both arguments. See In re Zimmer , 207 So.3d 1006, 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) ("Where a trial court denies a facially sufficient petition [for name change], the factual basis for doing so must be set forth in its order."); Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.535(b) ("Any proceeding shall be reported on the request of any party.").

We reverse and remand for a new hearing before a different judge, as the prior judge has since left the bench.

Reversed and remanded for new hearing.

Gerber, C.J., Warner and Forst, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 So. 3d 133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-johnson-fladistctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack