BILL NUMBER: S7474

SPONSOR: MAYER
 
TITLE OF BILL:

An act to amend the domestic relations law, in relation to informing the
parties in certain judgments or decrees that resuming the use of their
former surname is permitted by operation of law

 
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:

To eliminate the implicit requirements that the court and the ex-spouse
must consent before a party can resume use of their former surname.

 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Section 1 replaces the current requirement that divorce judgments and
decrees contain a provision permitting the parties to resume use of
their former surnames with a requirement that such judgments and decrees
be accompanied by a separate notice informing the parties that they may
resume use of their former surnames by operation of law. Such notice
will not be considered a part of the judgement or decree and will not
              

require any signature. In addition, Section 1 stipulates that no divorce
documents may include a provision regarding use of a former surname
which provision must be agreed or consented to by the other party.

Section 2 sets the effective date.

 
JUSTIFICATION:

Current statutory language specifies that divorce judgments and decrees
must contain a provision that each party "may resume" the use of a
former surname. It is beneficial for parties to be informed of the law
as to resuming use of a former surname upon divorce. However, the
current wording of the statute leads judgments and decrees to unneces-
sarily and erroneously imply that it is the court, in its own
discretion, which is allowing the parties to use former surnames rather
than a right which is available by operation of law. In addition, these
documents require that each party agree to the provisions in the docu-
ments by signing them, which effectively imposes a requirement that an
ex-spouse give consent before a party may resume use of their former .
surname. Other legal documents in divorce proceedings contain similar
provisions.

Women have historically changed their names in connection with marriage
at much higher rates than men. The statute as now in effect results in
court documents that imply a paternalistic attitude towards women by
portraying the legality of resuming the use of a former surname as
dependent on the consent of both the court and the ex-spouse. The simple
clarification in this bill makes the statute (and by extension, the
legal documents in question) more accurate as to the legal basis for
resuming use of a former surname, and more respectful as we engage in
society-wide work to jettison language and conventions that perpetuate
gender-based inequities.

 
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

New bill.

 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None to the state.

 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
The provisions of the bill shall take effect 90 days after becoming law.