Matter of McIntyre
This text of 715 A.2d 400 (Matter of McIntyre) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
[326]*326 OPINION
We granted allocatur to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Appellant’s petition to change name. For the following reasons, we reverse.
Appellant, a fifty-three year old male, is a pre-operative transsexual who is undergoing hormonal therapy and psychotherapy in anticipation of sex-reassignment surgery. He has been struggling -with personal gender identity issues since the age of ten. Appellant is the father of two adult sons and has been divorced since 1983.
In 1991, Appellant began dressing as a woman and held himself out to the community as a woman in all respects with the exception of his employment as a maintenance worker for the Harrisburg Parking Authority. He is generally known as Katherine Marie McIntyre, the name under which he leases his apartment, maintains various bank accounts and credit cards and is enrolled in membership in local organizations.
On August 25, 1995, Appellant filed a petition to change name from Robert Henry McIntyre to Katherine Marie McIntyre pursuant to 54 Pa.C.S. §§ 701-705.1 A hearing was held where Appellant presented testimony establishing that a prerequisite to sex-reassignment surgery is that the patient undergo the “real-life test” whereby he lives for a minimum of one year in all aspects of his life in the gender he desires to [327]*327be. Appellant argued that he is unable to satisfy this requirement because his employer will not recognize him as a female until it receives legal recognition of his name change.
The common pleas court denied the petition primarily on the ground that Appellant failed to present testimony or documentation of the statutory requirement that he be free of judgments.2 See Act of December 16, 1982, P.L. 1309, No. 295, § 6(b).3 Appellant filed for reconsideration and submitted proof that he was, in fact, judgment free.
The common pleas court granted reconsideration but again denied the petition holding that it would not grant legal recognition of Appellant’s name change until he undergoes sex-reassignment surgery. It found that granting the name change was premature and would be deceptive to the public and to Appellant’s co-workers. It relied on prior common pleas court decisions where a similar result was reached. In re: Dowdrick, 4 Pa. D & C.3d 681 (1978) (granting feminine name change petition of pre-operative transsexual male does not comport with good sense, common decency and fairness to all concerned and the public); In re: Richardson, 23 Pa. D & C.3d 199 (1982) (same). The Superior Court affirmed on the basis of the common pleas court’s opinion.4
Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his petition for name change absent a factual basis for doing so. He asserts that there was no objection to the petition, that the name requested is ordinary and that he is not attempting to avoid financial obligations or commit fraud. He further contends that the trial court’s refusal to grant the name change until the sex-reassignment surgery was completed was an arbitrary determination. We agree.5
[328]*328The trial court has wide discretion in ruling upon a petition to change name and should exercise its discretion in a way as to comport with good sense, common decency and fairness to all concerned and to the public. Falcucci Name Change, 355 Pa. 588, 50 A.2d 200 (1947). Petitions for change of name may be denied upon lawful objection or if the petitioner seeks a name change in order to defraud the public. Id.
We must keep in mind, however, that the primary purpose of the Judicial Change of Name Statute, other than with regard to minor children, is to prohibit fraud by those attempting to avoid financial obligations. Commonwealth v. Goodman, 544 Pa. 339, 676 A.2d 234 (1996); see also In re: Grimes, 530 Pa. 388, 609 A.2d 158 (1992) (necessity for judicial involvement in name change petition centers on governmental concerns that individuals not alter their identity to avoid financial obligations). The penalty provision of the name change statute applies only to persons violating the act for the purpose of avoiding payment of taxes or other debts. 54 Pa.C.S. § 705.
Here, it was undisputed that Appellant was judgment free and was not seeking a name change to avoid any financial obligations or commit fraud.6 The fact that he is a transsexual [329]*329seeking a feminine name should not affect the disposition of his request.
The Superior Court of New Jersey espoused a similar view in The Matter of William Eck, 245 N. J.Super. 220, 584 A.2d 859 (1991). The petitioner in Eck was a transsexual who sought to change his name from William to Lisa. The lower court denied the request, concluding that it was inherently fraudulent for a male to assume an obviously female name for the purpose of representing himself to society as a female.
The Superior Court of New Jersey reversed, holding that
[a]bsent fraud or other improper purpose a person has a right to a name change whether he or she has undergone or intends to undergo a sex change through surgery, has received hormonal injections to induce physical change, is a transvestite, or simply wants to change from a traditional “male” first name to one traditionally “female,” or vice versa. Many first names are gender interchangeable ... and judges should be chary about interfering with a person’s choice of a first name.
Finally, we perceive that the judge was concerned about a male assuming a female identity in mannerism and dress. That is an accomplished fact in this case, a matter which is [330]*330of no concern to the judiciary, and which has no bearing upon the outcome of a simple name change application.
Id. at 223, 584 A.2d at 860-861.
Likewise, we find that there is no public interest being protected by the denial of Appellant’s name change petition. The details surrounding Appellant’s quest for sex-reassignment surgery are not a matter of governmental concern. As the name change statute and the procedures thereunder indicate a liberal policy regarding change of name requests, In re: Grimes, 530 Pa. 388, 609 A.2d 158 (1992), we see no reason to impose restrictions which the legislature has not.
Accordingly, because Appellant has satisfied the statutory requirements, the trial court abused its discretion in denying his name change petition. The Order is reversed and the petition is granted.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
715 A.2d 400, 552 Pa. 324, 1998 Pa. LEXIS 1468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-mcintyre-pa-1998.