Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Piotrowski v. Piotrowski
Citations: 247 N.W.2d 354; 71 Mich. App. 213; 1976 Mich. App. LEXIS 938Docket: (Docket 26085.)
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals; September 8, 1976; Michigan; State Appellate Court
Plaintiff Piotrowski appeals a divorce judgment from September 24, 1975, specifically contesting the trial court's refusal to restore her maiden name. Under common law, individuals can adopt any name without court intervention, provided it is not for fraudulent purposes. Michigan statutes allow courts to change a person's name upon petition, reaffirming the common law right to change names. Specifically, MCLA 552.391 permits circuit courts to restore a woman's birth name or allow her to adopt another surname upon divorce, with the only limitation being the absence of fraudulent intent. In this case, the trial court denied the name change request, citing concerns about the mother having a different surname than her child, which could complicate matters like school enrollment. However, the court acknowledged that the statute is permissive, and the recent amendment removed prior language that restricted name changes in the presence of minor children. The appellate court emphasized that the presence of a minor child alone does not justify denying the name change request and that the trial court's discretion must be exercised based on reason and evidence. Speculation regarding potential embarrassment, confusion, or harassment of children due to a mother’s name change is deemed insufficient to warrant denial of such a request. The court found the initial denial to be an improper exercise of discretion. Upon review, other issues raised concerning support and property settlements were found not to constitute an abuse of discretion by the trial court. The ruling was reversed, and the case was remanded to restore the mother’s maiden name without costs to either party. A statutory revision noted that while the absolute bar against name changes for mothers with minor children was removed, a new restriction was introduced, requiring that name changes not be sought with fraudulent intent, applicable specifically to adopting a new surname. The Legislature intended to allow judges discretion in name change matters to protect children’s interests, and it was argued that the court acted appropriately in considering these interests. The judge's decision on the name change issue was affirmed, with concurrence on the other matters.