Appeals court reverses name change rejection

By Dan Heilman
BridgeTower Media Newswires

MINNEAPOLIS — With the growing tendency toward gender identities that aren’t strictly masculine or feminine, the Minnesota Court of Appeals was asked recently to reconcile that trend with Minnesota statute.

The case involved Bradley Stephen Boone, who had two felony convictions during the 1990s.

Late in 2017, Boone, who prefers being referred to by feminine pronouns, had applied for a name change in Nicollet County, where she resides. Her felony convictions were in Stearns County.

Earlier that year, she had served notice of her name-change petition on the Stearns County attorney’s office, as required by Minn. Stat. § 259.13, subd. 1(a). (Minnesota Statutes chapter 259 governs the process of seeking a legal name change.)

In a letter to the district court, the county stated that it had “no objection” to the name change.

During a December 2017 hearing, Boone called two witnesses, both of whom testified to Boone’s identity, her residence in Nicollet County and Minnesota for at least six months, and to their opinion that Boone was not seeking a name change to defraud anyone.

Boone testified that she does not own real estate, that she is civilly committed in St. Peter as part of the Minnesota sex offender program, and that she has felony convictions from the 1990s.

The following February, the court issued its decision, denying Boone’s application.

The court reasoned that even though Boone had met three of the statutory requirements for a name change, but not the fourth: clear and convincing evidence that her application would not compromise public safety.

Boone appealed, represented by Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid/ Minnesota Disability Law Center.

Minnesota statute 259 dictates that if the conditions of a legal name change are satisfied, the district court must grant the request unless it finds that the request constitutes an intent to defraud or mislead.

But because Boone has a felony conviction, her name-change application was also governed by a section of that statute that gives a prosecuting authority the right to file an objection to a felon’s
name-change application within 30 days of receiving required notice if: the name-change request aims to defraud or mislead; it is not made in good faith; the name change will cause injury to a person; or it will compromise public safety.

In the case of an objection by the prosecuting authority, the district court cannot grant the request unless the applicant files a motion with the court for an order permitting the requested name change, and proves that the name-change request is not based on any of the four statutory concerns.

The catch in Boone’s case was that there was no objection by the prosecuting authority — in this case, Stearns County. “Despite no objection from Stearns County, the district court proceeded to analyze the factors in section 259.13, subdivision 2,” wrote Court of Appeals Judge James B. Florey in his opinion. “The court’s treatment of Boone’s unobjected-to name-change application runs counter to the plain language of the statute.”

The appellate court also found that the district court denied Boone due process by failing to provide her notice that the factors would be considered and an opportunity to be heard and contest the court’s conclusion with clear and convincing evidence.

The court went on to point out that in the absence of any objection by Stearns County, there was never a “triggering event” notifying Boone that, in order to pursue her petition, she must file a motion for an order to grant her name change request and provide clear and convincing evidence that her petition would not compromise public safety.

“In light of the lack of objection by the prosecuting authority and the plain language of section 259.13, Boone had no notice that the district court would consider the four factors when it reviewed her petition,” wrote Florey.

Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid/ Minnesota Disability Law Center had helped Boone at the application level, and represented her in the appellate court. Staff attorney Eren Sutherland said Boone is now free to go ahead with the desired name change.

“We were aware of the lack of objection from Stearns County when we applied for the name change,” said Sutherland. “We have to conclude that the district court saw room for interpretation and made an honest mistake.”

The case was reversed and remanded back to district court.