Teske v. Teske

Annotate this Case

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the portion of the judgment of divorce denying Sarah Teske's request to change her name and otherwise affirmed the judgment, holding that the court's rationale for denying the name change was erroneous.

Tegan Teske filed a complaint for divorce from Sarah. Sarah filed an answer and counterclaim but did not request that the court change her name. Before a final hearing, each party submitted a proposed judgment to the court. Sarah's proposed judgment included a provision changing her name to her former name, Sarah Chagnon. The court subsequently entered a divorce judgment that did not change Sarah's name. The Supreme Judicial Court remanded with instructions to amend the judgment to provide that Sarah Teske's name be changed to Sarah Chagnon, holding that the trial court erred in not granting Sarah's request to change her name to her former name.

Download PDF

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Decision: 2020 ME 98 Docket: Yor-20-16 Submitted On Briefs: June 25, 2020 Decided: July 14, 2020 Panel: MEAD, GORMAN, HUMPHREY, and CONNORS, JJ. Reporter of Decisions TEGAN S. TESKE v. SARAH M. TESKE GORMAN, J. [¶1] Sarah M. Teske appeals from a judgment of divorce entered by the District Court (York, Duddy, J.) after a hearing. We vacate the portion of the judgment denying Sarah’s request to change her name and otherwise affirm the judgment. [¶2] In 2017, Tegan S. Teske filed a complaint for divorce from Sarah. In response, Sarah filed an answer and counterclaim in which she did not request that the court change her name. In November of 2019, the court held a final hearing in the matter; in advance of that hearing, each party submitted a proposed judgment to the court that included a provision changing Sarah’s name to her former name, Sarah Chagnon. The issue of Sarah’s name change was not discussed by either party at the hearing. On November 20, 2019, the 2 court entered a divorce judgment in which the court stated that it “decline[d] to change [Sarah’s] name.” [¶3] Title 19-A M.R.S. § 1051 (2020), which governs name changes in divorce proceedings, requires a court entering a divorce judgment to grant a spouse’s request to change his or her own name to a former name.1 Although Sarah did not request a name change in her counterclaim, she did request this relief in her proposed judgment, and the court was aware that she had done so. The court’s rationale for denying the name change was completely understandable,2 but it was nonetheless error. Accordingly, we vacate the portion of the judgment denying Sarah’s request to change her name, and remand with instructions to amend the judgment to provide that Sarah Teske’s name be changed to Sarah Chagnon.3 1 Sarah did not reference 19-A M.R.S. § 1051 (2020) in her proposed judgment or during the hearing. Section 1051 provides that, “[u]pon the request of either spouse to change that person’s own name,” the divorce court “[s]hall change the name of that spouse to a former name requested”; it provides for no exceptions to this mandate. In these respects, section 1051 differs from Maine’s other statute governing name changes, 18-C M.R.S. § 1-701 (2020), which is couched in permissive language and, additionally, prohibits a court from granting a name change “if the judge has reason to believe that the person is seeking the name change for purposes of defrauding another person or entity or for purposes otherwise contrary to the public interest.” 2 At the time of the divorce judgment, Sarah had absconded to Canada with the parties’ children. The court stated that it was declining to change Sarah’s name “so as not to complicate law enforcement and international efforts to locate [Sarah] and have the children returned.” 3 We are unpersuaded by Sarah’s remaining arguments and do not address them. 3 The entry is: Portion of judgment denying Sarah Teske’s request to change her name is vacated. Remanded to the District Court for modification of the judgment to change Sarah Teske’s name to her former name, Sarah Chagnon. Judgment affirmed in all other respects. Natalie J. Kreckel, Esq., Fairfield & Associates, P.A., Kennebunk, for appellant Sarah M. Teske Matthew W. Howell, Esq., Clark & Howell, LLC, York, for appellee Tegan S. Teske York District Court docket number FM-2017-170 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY

Primary Holding

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.