Tuesday, May 6, 2008

What's in a name...

In 2005 a man tried to legally change his name to his wife's name, and was told he would have to pay four times what his wife would have to pay to change her name to his, as well as needing to advertise his name change in the newspaper, and get judicial approval. A lawsuit was filed in 2006, and finally, a judgment has been returned in his favor.

Michael Buday wanted to take his wife's surname after marriage but found that the DMV wouldn't issue him a new license in that name.

Women get to change their names all the time, and Buday figured it was his right to change his. Plus, he promised his new wife that he would take her name, Bijon, because their were no sons in her father's family to carry on the Bijon name.

So, what's in a name? A three-year legal battle for starters. Today, Buday, uh, Bijon was granted the right to become Michael Bijon. Strike up one for women's liberation.


Prior to his lawsuit, if Buday wanted to make the change to Bijon, he would have had to pay court fees of more than $300, advertise his plans in newspaper for four weeks and get judicial approval.

The traditional method of Bijon taking on Buday's name would have cost
somewhere between about $50 and $90. And that's it. No newspaper announcement, no judicial approval.


Elizabeth O'Neal said...

Interesting that CA won't (or wouldn't) let you choose your married name like Hawaii will (where I got married back in '03).

They do, however, let you choose your post-divorce name when filling out the paperwork.

CA is a strange place, ain't it? ;-)

John said...

The question is if California (or any state) has a spot on the divorce paperwork that allows the man to choose their 'post-divorce' name.

Not that I am likely to change my name upon marriage.