In Re Rusconi
1960 Mass. LEXIS 572, 341 Mass. 167, 167 N.E.2d 847 (1960)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may not deny a petition for a change of name based on subjective considerations such as the judge's personal views on ethnic pride or potential injury to family members' feelings. A petition for a name change may only be denied for a sufficient reason consistent with public interests, such as a fraudulent or unlawful purpose.
Facts:
- Joseph Paul Rusconi and his wife, Anne Wilma Rusconi, petitioned to change their surname, and that of their two minor children, to Bryan.
- Joseph's father, Guiseppe Rusconi, his brother, James Rusconi, and his sister, Joan A. Friary, formally objected to the proposed name change.
- Joseph's mother and two other brothers also expressed their opposition to the petition.
- The Rusconi family was well-known and respected in their predominantly Italian community.
- The objecting family members were proud of the surname Rusconi and felt that the petition to change it was a slur to the Italian race and caused them public ridicule and embarrassment.
Procedural Posture:
- Joseph and Anne Rusconi filed a petition in the Probate Court to change their surname and the surnames of their minor children.
- Several of Joseph Rusconi's family members filed appearances in opposition to the petition.
- The petitioners filed a motion to strike the appearances of the opposing family members, which was implicitly denied.
- After a hearing, the Probate Court judge entered a decree denying the petition for the name change.
- The petitioners appealed the denial to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a probate court abuse its discretion by denying a petition for a change of name on the grounds that the change would be an affront to the petitioners' ethnic heritage and would cause ridicule and embarrassment to their family members?
Opinions:
Majority - Spalding, J.
No. A court abuses its discretion by denying a petition for a name change based on reasons concerning ethnic pride or family sensibilities, as these are not legally sufficient grounds. The statute governing name changes must be interpreted in light of the broad common law right for an individual to assume any name, provided it is not for a fraudulent or unlawful purpose. The trial judge's reasoning—that the change was 'un-American' and an 'affront to those bearing the name of Rusconi in particular and the Italian race in general'—was an improper basis for denial. The court's function is not to pass judgment on the wisdom or personal motives behind a petitioner's desire for a new name. While the injury to the family's feelings is understandable, it does not constitute a legally valid reason to deny the petition. As there were no findings that the petitioners sought the name change for a fraudulent purpose or that it was inconsistent with the public interest, the denial was an error of law.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of judicial discretion in name change proceedings, reinforcing the principle that the statutory process is intended to facilitate, not restrict, the common law right to change one's name. It establishes a clear precedent that a judge's subjective social views, concerns about ethnic pride, or deference to family members' feelings are legally irrelevant and cannot serve as the basis for denying a petition. The ruling focuses the legal inquiry on objective, legally cognizable harms, such as fraudulent intent or direct harm to the public interest, thereby protecting an individual's right to choose their name for personal reasons, whatever they may be.
