For the record, "Boomer the Dog" is a close personal friend of Radio Jamba International.THIS IS WRONG!!!! THIS JUDGE IS A F00KTARD!!!
CIVIL DIVISION No.GD10-11514
MEMORANDUM
Presently before this Court is the Verified Petition for a Name Change, filed on behalf of Gary Guy Mathews. Mr. Mathews seeks to change his name to "Boomer the Dog." In his Petition, Mr. Mathews states: "I've been known as Boomer the Dog by friends in the community for more than 20 years. I want to bring my legal name in line with that."
Pennsylvania law on the subject is well-settled. "[T]he primary purpose of the Judicial Change of Name Statute...is to prohibit fraud by those attempting to avoid financial obligations." Matter of Mclntyre, 715 A.2d 400, 402 (1998). There are, however, other considerations: "a court may properly exercise its wide discretion to refuse a requested name if the name is bizarre or unduly lengthy or difficult to pronounce or possessive of a ridiculous offensive connotation...A court must, therefore, discharge its discretion in a way as to comport with good sense, common decency, and fairness to all concerned and to the public." In re Ravitch, 754 A.2d 1287,1289 (Pa. Super. 2000).
On the record before this Court, there is no indication that Mr. Mathews is seeking the name change in order to avoid financial obligations. My concern, however, is that the proposed name change is reasonably likely to have consequences adverse to the public interest. It is easy to see that Petitioner's use of the proposed name is likely to result in confusion in the marketplace, confusion in business records and confusion in public documents. Moreover, the proposed name change would have unintended consequences, putting the public welfare at risk. Consider the following example: The Court grants Petitioner the right to use the proposed name legally and exclusively. Sometime thereafter, Petitioner witnesses a serious automobile accident and telephones for an emergency medical response. The dispatcher on the phone queries as to the caller's identity, and the caller responds, "this is Boomer the Dog." It is not a stretch to imagine the telephone dispatcher concluding that the call is a prank and refusing therefore to send an emergency medical response.
In short, because of the strong likelihood of confusion and the opportunity for adverse consequences to the public that would be engendered by the proposed name change, I am this date denying Petitioner's request. Although Petitioner apparently wishes it were otherwise, the simple fact remains that Petitioner is not a dog.
MEMORANDUM
Presently before this Court is the Verified Petition for a Name Change, filed on behalf of Gary Guy Mathews. Mr. Mathews seeks to change his name to "Boomer the Dog." In his Petition, Mr. Mathews states: "I've been known as Boomer the Dog by friends in the community for more than 20 years. I want to bring my legal name in line with that."
Pennsylvania law on the subject is well-settled. "[T]he primary purpose of the Judicial Change of Name Statute...is to prohibit fraud by those attempting to avoid financial obligations." Matter of Mclntyre, 715 A.2d 400, 402 (1998). There are, however, other considerations: "a court may properly exercise its wide discretion to refuse a requested name if the name is bizarre or unduly lengthy or difficult to pronounce or possessive of a ridiculous offensive connotation...A court must, therefore, discharge its discretion in a way as to comport with good sense, common decency, and fairness to all concerned and to the public." In re Ravitch, 754 A.2d 1287,1289 (Pa. Super. 2000).
On the record before this Court, there is no indication that Mr. Mathews is seeking the name change in order to avoid financial obligations. My concern, however, is that the proposed name change is reasonably likely to have consequences adverse to the public interest. It is easy to see that Petitioner's use of the proposed name is likely to result in confusion in the marketplace, confusion in business records and confusion in public documents. Moreover, the proposed name change would have unintended consequences, putting the public welfare at risk. Consider the following example: The Court grants Petitioner the right to use the proposed name legally and exclusively. Sometime thereafter, Petitioner witnesses a serious automobile accident and telephones for an emergency medical response. The dispatcher on the phone queries as to the caller's identity, and the caller responds, "this is Boomer the Dog." It is not a stretch to imagine the telephone dispatcher concluding that the call is a prank and refusing therefore to send an emergency medical response.
In short, because of the strong likelihood of confusion and the opportunity for adverse consequences to the public that would be engendered by the proposed name change, I am this date denying Petitioner's request. Although Petitioner apparently wishes it were otherwise, the simple fact remains that Petitioner is not a dog.
0 comments:
Post a Comment