AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The Petitioner sought to change their legal name from "Snaphappy Fishsuit Mokiligon" to "Variable." The district court denied the request, citing that the proposed name was offensive to common decency and good sense and contrary to the public good. The Petitioner had previously filed multiple petitions for name changes, all of which were denied (paras 1, 6-7).

Procedural History

• District Court, March 30, 2004: Denied the Petitioner's request for the same name change, citing reasons of offensiveness and public good (paras 6-7).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Petitioner): Argued that under NMSA 1978, § 40-8-1, they have the right to change their name unless sufficient cause is shown to deny the request. They contended that the proposed name "Variable" is not offensive or fraudulent and that the district court failed to provide sufficient factual support for its denial (paras 3, 6).
• Respondent (State): Opposed the name change, arguing that the Petitioner's repeated filings for name changes were vexatious and tied up court resources. The State also raised the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, asserting that the Petitioner's repeated requests for the same name change should be barred (paras 7, 9).

Legal Issues

• Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying the Petitioner's request for a name change?
• Does the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel apply to bar the Petitioner's repeated requests for the same name change?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order denying the Petitioner's application for a name change (para 11).

Reasons

Per A. Joseph Alarid J. (Bustamante and Fry JJ. concurring):

The Court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the Petitioner's name change request without sufficient factual support. Under NMSA 1978, § 40-8-1, the burden is on the court or interested parties to show lawful objections to a name change, such as unworthy motives, fraud, or a name that is bizarre, offensive, or contrary to public decency. The record lacked evidence of such objections, and the name "Variable" was not inherently offensive or fraudulent (paras 3-6).

The Court rejected the State's argument that res judicata or collateral estoppel barred the Petitioner's repeated requests, noting that name change petitions are not traditional litigation and that the statute does not limit the number of petitions a person may file. The Court also declined to affirm the denial based on the State's claim of vexatious filings, as this was not a reason provided by the district court, and the Petitioner had no opportunity to respond to this argument (paras 7-9).

The Court clarified that the Petitioner is restricted to using "Variable" as their legal name and cannot vary it at will. It also noted that the district court could impose restrictions on future filings if it finds the Petitioner's actions to be vexatious (para 10).