Summary
holding that, because appellant's petition was facially sufficient, he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing so that he could prove that his motivation for changing his name was without ulterior or illegal motive, a requirement of section 68.07(j), Florida Statutes
Summary of this case from Finfrock v. StateOpinion
No. 93-1992.
June 29, 1994.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Richard I. Wennett, J.
Alejandro Hoyos, pro se.
No brief filed, for appellee.
Hoyos, a prison inmate, converted to the religious faith of Islam while he was incarcerated. Thereafter, he filed a facially sufficient petition pursuant to Section 68.07, Florida Statutes (1993), to change his name in accordance with religious tradition. In response, the Department of Corrections ("DOC") filed a conditional objection contending that a name change would adversely affect its security interests. Based on DOC's response, the trial court summarily denied Hoyos' petition. After the petition was denied, Hoyos requested an evidentiary hearing. The trial court denied the request. We reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing on Hoyos' petition.
Ordinarily, a facially sufficient petition for name change should be granted in the absence of evidence of a wrongful or fraudulent purpose. See Brown v. Name Change, 611 So.2d 1355 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). The trial court committed reversible error when it failed to provide Hoyos with an opportunity to present evidence and to be heard on the issue of whether or not his reasons for seeking a name change were without ulterior or illegal motive. Gosby v. Third Jud. Cir., 586 So.2d 1056 (Fla. 1991); Casey v. State, 604 So.2d 1281 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); In re Boyd, 627 So.2d 30 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ANSTEAD and KLEIN, JJ., concur.