2024 Ohio 1187
Ohio Ct. App.2024Background
- Justin D. Millhouse, II, an incarcerated person, filed a pro se application in Ross County Probate Court to add a common law name (Alexis Szandora Millhouse) to her legal documentation to align with her legal gender.
- The probate court denied the application, citing non-compliance with statutory procedures, lack of jurisdiction for common law name changes, and ineligibility for a name change due to incarceration and registration requirements under Ohio law.
- Millhouse appealed, arguing the application was for a name addition under common law, not a statutory name change, and raised concerns about discrimination based on gender incongruence.
- The appellate court consolidated the assignments of error and reviewed whether the probate court abused its discretion in denying the application.
- The court considered public policy interests, the effect on victims' rights, and the Adult Parole Authority’s interest in monitoring offenders, referencing previous precedent limiting name changes for incarcerated felons.
Issues
| Issue | Millhouse's Argument | Probate Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a common law name change can be recognized by the probate court | The request was to add a common law name, not a statutory name change, to match legal gender | Only statutory name changes are within probate court jurisdiction; common law changes not recognized by court | Probate court properly denied, statutory procedures must be followed |
| Jurisdiction of Ross County Probate Court over the application | Court should have jurisdiction as Millhouse resided in Ross County for 7 years | Probate court cannot grant common law name changes; lacks statutory authority | Jurisdiction argument rejected, no authority for relief sought |
| Statutory eligibility for name change during incarceration with registration duties | Application could not be fully completed truthfully due to registration requirement, common law principles should apply instead | Statutory process requires eligibility and does not allow exceptions based on common law | Statutory requirements govern; application non-compliant |
| Abuse of discretion in denying the name change application | Court failed to consider practical issues of discrimination and need for congruence with legal gender | Denial was consistent with prior precedent and public policy for victim protection and monitoring of felons | No abuse of discretion found, denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hall, 135 Ohio App.3d 1 (standard of review for abuse of discretion in name change cases)
- In re Willhite, 85 Ohio St.3d 28 (guidelines for determining if name change request is reasonable and proper)
- In re Name Change of Handley, 107 Ohio Misc.2d 24 (public policy considerations in name change)
- In re Change of Name of DeWeese, 148 Ohio App.3d 201 (dual statutory and common law methods for name change in Ohio)
- State v. Kirkland, 140 Ohio St.3d 73 (definition of abuse of discretion)
- AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (deferential abuse of discretion review)