Discretion abused in denial of name change petition.

- Trial court abused the court's discretion by denying the petitioners' respective petitions to change their names because each followed the procedure for name change laid out in O.C.G.A. § 19-12-1, there was no evidence before the trial court to authorize a conclusion that either of them were acting with any improper motive against any specific person, and no objections were raised at the hearings on the petitions. Furthermore, a trial court's conclusions about any person's confusion or embarrassment is not a valid basis for denying a petition for a name change. In re Feldhaus, 340 Ga. App. 83, 796 S.E.2d 316 (2017).

Purpose of name change.

- Supreme Court of Georgia has long held that in the absence of a statute or judicial adjudication to the contrary, there is nothing in the law prohibiting a person from taking or assuming another name, so long as the person does not assume a name for the purpose of defrauding other persons through a mistake of identity. In re Feldhaus, 340 Ga. App. 83, 796 S.E.2d 316 (2017).

No abuse of discretion.

- There was no abuse of discretion in denying a petition for name change as the petitioner was incarcerated following the petitioner's conviction for first degree forgery. In re Parrott, 194 Ga. App. 856, 392 S.E.2d 48 (1990).

Trial court's order denying an activist's petition for a name change was not an abuse of discretion as such would have deprived a newspaper publisher of that person's good name if granted. In re Serpentfoot, 285 Ga. App. 325, 646 S.E.2d 267 (2007), cert. denied, No. S07C1397, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 661 (Ga. 2007).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 57 Am. Jur. 2d, Name, §§ 16, 22, 23, 66, 75.

C.J.S.

- 65 C.J.S., Names, § 21 et seq.