Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 25NNCP00091, Date: 2025-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25NNCP00091    Hearing Date: April 11, 2025    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

DENIAL OF DECREE CHANGING NAME
Los Angeles Superior Court Case # 25NNCP00091

THIS MATTER IS POSTED ON THE COURT'S TENTATIVE RULING SITE FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE PETITIONER; HOWEVER, THIS IS A FINAL RULING.

Petitioner’s Request:

Petitioner submitted a Petition for Name Change, and the matter came on the Court’s regular calendar on April 11, 2025.  Petitioner requests a name change from “John Troy Williams” to “Tory Tywison Cymru, Brenin of New York” and states the reason is that he has an, “inalinenbale right under the declaration of Custos Morum Express Trust, protected by the 1849 California Constitution; the General Act of Algeciras, The Treaty of Marrakech The Morocco-Treaty of Peace, The Articles of Confederation and the The United States, i.e. The Territory of America, fo The Sake of Intercouse, And Amity, And the Promotion of Trade, (Articles 2, 4 and 6). [sic].”

Law and Analysis:

In re Ritchie (1984) 159 Cal. App. 3d 1070, 1072-1073 [a name change may be denied if it is inherently confusing and not a legitimate “name.”  The Court believes that the proposed name is not a legitimate name.  The use of “ Brenin of New York” is confusing and may lead to confusion as parties may believe that “of New York” pertains to a family history rather than a formal name.  In re Ritchie, supra 159 Cal. App. 3d at 1072-1073 the trial court denied a petitioner's application to change his name to the Roman numeral "III" (pronounced "three"). The order was affirmed on appeal because the proposed surname was inherently confusing and not a legitimate "name." 

The Legislature vested the trial Courts with discretionary authority to grant, or deny, a request to change a name. See Code of Civil Procedure section 1278. The trial Court may make an order changing the name, or dismissing the application, as the Court may seem right and just. Lee v Superior Court (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 510, 513-515. While the Petitioner has a common law right to change his name, there is not unlimited statutory right to change a name.  Lee v. Superior Court (1992) 9 Cal. App. 4^th 510, 514; In re Weingarnd (1964) 231 Cal. App. 2d 289, Weathers v. Superior Court (1976) 54 Cal. App. 3d 286.

Ruling:

The Petition to Change name is denied.

A copy of this ruling was made available on the Court’s Tentative Ruling portal and was available for Petitioner in court.