IN RE: Steven Benton AUBREY (2022)

We reverse a final order denying a name change under section 68.07, Florida Statutes (2021). “When a court denies a facially sufficient petition for name change, the court must provide the factual basis for doing so.” In re Williams, 335 So. 3d 145, 145 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022). A conclusory order without an articulated factual basis is insufficient to support the denial of a name change. See Medina v. State, 310 So. 3d 426, 427 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); In re Zimmer, 207 So. 3d 1006, 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017); Barton v. Cir. Ct. of Nineteenth Jud. Cir., 659 So. 2d 1262, 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Here, the trial court did not find that appellant's petition was filed with an ulterior or illegal purpose. Although the final order stated that the petition was denied “so as not to invade the property rights of judgment creditors,” the order failed to provide a factual basis explaining how the name change would violate those property rights. On remand, the trial court may take into consideration events subsequent to the filing of the petition, such as appellant's arrest on criminal charges arising out of Texas.

Reversed and remanded.

Per Curiam.

Gross, Ciklin and Kuntz, JJ., concur.