Changing Your Name in Minnesota: Four Statutes, Four Very Different Prices

Most people who want to change their name in Minnesota file the wrong petition.

Not wrong in the sense of legally defective — wrong in the sense of expensive. The general name-change application under Minn. Stat. § 259.10 requires six months of Minnesota residency, a personal appearance, proof of identity “by at least two witnesses,” a description of every parcel of land in the state in which the applicant claims an interest, a full civil filing fee, and — if the applicant has any criminal history anywhere — a mandatory report to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension whose omission is a gross misdemeanor.

Minnesota also has three narrower routes that skip most of that. Two of them are fee-free by express statutory command. And the statute that decides which route you are in is often not the one you would think to read.

There is a second thing worth knowing before you file, and it is the sleeper issue in this area: a biological father is not automatically entitled to notice of a minor’s name-change application. The Court of Appeals held exactly that in 2017, and the statute it construed has not been amended since.

Which name-change statute applies to me?

The Change of Name Act runs from § 259.10 through § 259.14. There is no § 259.15 — the Revisor returns nothing for that citation. Section 259.14 was added in 2023 and is the newest piece of the scheme.

What does a general name-change application require?

Minn. Stat. § 259.10, subd. 1, is one long sentence doing a great deal of work. It provides that “[a] person who shall have resided in this state for six months may apply to the district court in the county where the person resides to change the person’s name, the names of minor children, if any, and the name of a spouse, if the spouse joins in the application.”

The application must:

• state the name and age of the spouse and each child, if any;
• “describe all lands in the state in or upon which the person, the children and the spouse if their names are also to be changed by the application, claim any interest or lien”; and
• be supported by the applicant, who “shall appear personally before the court and prove identity by at least two witnesses.”

Where the applicant is a minor, “the application shall be made by the person’s guardian or next of kin.”

Two more features of the subdivision matter in practice. First, if the applicant is recently divorced, the court “shall accept the certificate of dissolution prepared pursuant to section 518.148 as conclusive evidence of the facts recited in the certificate and may not require the person to provide the court a copy of the judgment and decree of dissolution.” That is a privacy protection worth invoking — the decree contains financial and custodial detail that has nothing to do with a name.

Second, the subdivision ends with two provisions that operate as sanctions and conditions rather than procedure: “Every person who, with intent to defraud, shall make a false statement in any such application shall be guilty of a misdemeanor provided, however, that no minor child’s name may be changed without both parents having notice of the pending of the application for change of name, whenever practicable, as determined by the court.”

That final proviso is the one litigated below.

When must the court grant the application?

Section 259.11(a) makes the grant mandatory with three exceptions:

Upon meeting the requirements of section 259.10, the court shall grant the application unless: (1) it finds that there is an intent to defraud or mislead; (2) section 259.13 prohibits granting the name change; or (3) in the case of the change of a minor child’s name, the court finds that such name change is not in the best interests of the child.

Note what is not on that list. There is no requirement that the applicant give a reason. There is no publication requirement anywhere in §§ 259.10–.14 — Minnesota does not make you advertise a name change in a newspaper. And § 259.11(a) closes with an express prohibition: “No application shall be denied on the basis of the marital status of the applicant.”

The order itself has content requirements. It must “set forth . . . the name and age of the applicant’s spouse and each child of the applicant, if any,” and “state a description of the lands, if any, in which the applicant and the spouse and children, if any, claim to have an interest.” Where land is described, the applicant must file a certified copy of the order with the county recorder in each county where the land sits, and before that filing the court administrator must present the order to the county auditor, who enters the change and notes on the instrument “change of name recorded.” The order is not filed and no certified copy issues “until the applicant shall have paid to the county recorder and court administrator the fee required by law.”

If you own real property in Minnesota, in other words, a name change is also a title-record chore. It is worth doing correctly the first time, for the same reasons discussed in our piece on quiet title actions under Minn. Stat. § 559.01.

The criminal-history check nobody warns you about

This is § 259.11(b), and it applies to every applicant — not only to people with convictions:

When a person applies for a name change, the court shall determine whether the person has a criminal history in this or any other state. The court may conduct a search of national records through the Federal Bureau of Investigation by submitting a set of fingerprints and the appropriate fee to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.

If the court determines the applicant has a criminal history anywhere, two reporting duties fire:

• “the court shall, within ten days after the name change application is granted, report the name change to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension”; and
• “The person whose name is changed shall also report the change to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension within ten days.”

The order must explain that duty: “The court granting the name change application must explain this reporting duty in its order.” And the consequence of ignoring it is not trivial — “Any person required to report the person’s name change to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension who fails to report the name change as required under this paragraph is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.”

Section 259.11(c) exempts three routes from paragraph (b) entirely:

1. “a request for a name change as part of an application for a marriage license under section 517.08”;
2. “a request for a name change in conjunction with a marriage dissolution under section 518.27”; or
3. “a request for a name change filed under section 259.14.”

That exemption list is the practical reason the route you choose matters. A person with a decade-old misdemeanor record who changes a name through a dissolution decree under § 518.27 never encounters § 259.11(b) at all. The same person filing a freestanding § 259.10 application does — including the ten-day personal reporting duty backed by gross-misdemeanor exposure.

If the underlying record is the problem rather than the name, the better first question is whether the record can be sealed. See Minnesota criminal expungement and the Clean Slate Act.

What if I have a felony conviction?

Then § 259.13 governs, and it reaches all the routes — the § 259.10 application, a § 518.27 dissolution name change, and a § 259.14 postdissolution restoration alike.

Notice. Under § 259.13, subd. 1(a), a person with a felony conviction “under Minnesota law or the law of another state or federal jurisdiction shall serve a notice of application for a name change on the prosecuting authority that obtained the conviction.” Where the conviction is from another state or a federal court, “notice of application must also be served on the attorney general.” A person proceeding under § 259.10 or § 518.27 “shall file proof of service with the court as part of the name change request.” § 259.13, subd. 1(b).

A 30-day hold. The request “may not be granted during the 30-day period provided for in subdivision 2 or, if an objection is filed under subdivision 2, until satisfaction of the requirements in subdivision 3 or 4.” § 259.13, subd. 1(c). The subdivision carves out marriage licensing: “Nothing in this section shall delay the granting of a marriage license under section 517.08, which may be granted without the name change.”

Objection. Within 30 days of service, the prosecuting authority or the attorney general may object. The permitted grounds are that the request “aims to defraud or mislead, is not made in good faith, will cause injury to a person, or will compromise public safety.” § 259.13, subd. 2. If a timely objection is filed, “the court may not grant the name change request, and the county may not allow the name change as part of a marriage license.”

Contesting the objection. The applicant may move for an order permitting the change, but the burden is heavy and it is the applicant’s: “no name change shall be granted unless the person requesting it proves by clear and convincing evidence that the request is not based upon an intent to defraud or mislead, is made in good faith, will not cause injury to a person, and will not compromise public safety.” § 259.13, subd. 3.

The constitutional override. Subdivision 4 is short and absolute: “The court shall grant a name change if failure to allow it would infringe on a constitutional right of the person.”

Costs. Under subd. 5(a), a person seeking a name change under § 259.13 “may proceed in forma pauperis only when the failure to allow the name change would infringe upon a constitutional right.” Subdivision 5(b) creates one narrow fee exemption: “A court shall not require a person with a felony conviction to pay filing fees for a name change application provided that the person files the action within 180 days after the marriage and submits to the court a certified copy of the marriage certificate.”

Penalty. “A person who knowingly violates this section is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.” § 259.13, subd. 6.

Section 517.08 carries the same rule forward on the marriage-license side. Under § 517.08, subd. 1a(8), where one party “has a felony conviction under Minnesota law or the law of another state or federal jurisdiction, the party may not change the party’s name through the marriage application process and must follow the process in section 259.13.” Subdivision 1a(9) requires the application to give notice that using a different name after marriage without complying with § 259.13 “is a gross misdemeanor.” The local registrar may issue the license only if satisfied there is “no legal impediment to it, including the restriction contained in section 259.13.” § 517.08, subd. 1b(a).

What about someone who is incarcerated?

Section 259.12 imposes two limits, both narrow and both easy to miss:

During an inmate’s confinement in a correctional facility, as defined in section 241.021, subdivision 1i, an inmate may request a name change under section 259.10 only once and may proceed in forma pauperis only when the failure to allow the name change would infringe on a constitutional right of an inmate.

One application per period of confinement, and fee waiver only on a constitutional showing.

How does a court decide a minor’s name change?

By best interests — and, where a parent objects, under a demanding standard the supreme court set in 1974 and has never relaxed.

The objecting-parent standard. In Robinson v. Hansel, 302 Minn. 34, 223 N.W.2d 138 (1974), a custodial mother sought to add her new husband’s surname to her four children’s names over the natural father’s objection. The supreme court reversed the grant, holding:

We are fully persuaded . . . that judicial discretion in ordering a change of a minor’s surname against the objection of one parent should be exercised with great caution and only where the evidence is clear and compelling that the substantial welfare of the child necessitates such change.

Robinson, 302 Minn. at 36, 223 N.W.2d at 140. The court’s reasoning was about the parental bond, not about paternal prerogative: “A change in surname, so that a child no longer bears his father’s name, not only obviously is of inherent concern to the natural father, so that he should have standing to object, but is in a real sense a change in status having significant societal implications.” Id. at 35. It added a note that reads as generously now as it did then — “the time may well come when the child may cause an appropriate change of surname as his or her voluntary act.” Id. at 38.

The five factors. In re Saxton, 309 N.W.2d 298 (Minn. 1981), declined to alter Robinson but elucidated it. Two holdings matter. First, “neither parent has a superior right to determine the initial surname their child shall bear,” id. at 301 (citing In re Marriage of Jacobs, 309 N.W.2d 303 (Minn. 1981)) — the court rejected the premise that the paternal surname enjoys any preference. Second, the court set out a non-exclusive list of best-interests considerations: “the child’s preference; the effect of the change of the child’s surname on the preservation and the development of the child’s relationship with each parent; the length of time the child has borne a given name; the degree of community respect associated with the present and the proposed surname; and the difficulties, harassment or embarrassment, that the child may experience from bearing the present or the proposed surname.” Id.

The Court of Appeals has since restated those as the five Saxton factors: “(1) how long the child has had the current name; (2) any potential harassment or embarrassment the change might cause; (3) the child’s preference; (4) the effect of the change on the child’s relationship with each parent; and (5) the degree of community respect associated with the present and proposed names.” LaChapelle v. Mitten, 607 N.W.2d 151, 166 (Minn. App. 2000), quoted in Foster v. Foster, 802 N.W.2d 755, 757 (Minn. App. 2011).

Saxton added two procedural directions that are still good practice guidance. The trial court “should set out its reasons for granting or denying the application,” and — “[b]ecause the child’s welfare is paramount” — the court is encouraged “to consider the appointment of a guardian ad litem, and when it would be appropriate and helpful, to appoint a guardian ad litem at the expense of the parties.” 309 N.W.2d at 301. Saxton also held it was error to refuse to take testimony from a nine-year-old and a seven-year-old about their own surnames, though harmless on that record: “the children’s preferences are relevant to the determination.” Id. at 301–02.

How it plays out. Foster v. Foster, 802 N.W.2d 755 (Minn. App. 2011), affirmed a district court that changed a not-yet-two-year-old’s surname from the father’s name to a hyphenated combination over the father’s objection. The court of appeals framed the burden this way: “To prevent the district court from granting the request, the opposing parent must establish that evidence in support of the name change is not ‘clear and compelling that the substantial welfare of the child necessitates such change.’” Id. at 757 (quoting Robinson). Review is for abuse of discretion, and the district court must “set forth clear and compelling reasons for its decision” either way. Id. (quoting In re Welfare of C.M.G., 516 N.W.2d 555, 561 (Minn. App. 1994)).

The Foster record is instructive about what actually moves these cases. Factor one favored the change because the child was young. Factor three was neutral because the child was too young to express a preference. Factor five — community respect — carried real weight, because the mother’s family had long-standing local ties and the father was the only member of his family in Minnesota. The court of appeals expressly declined to reweigh the evidence. Id. at 758.

For the underlying custody and parenting framework these disputes sit inside, see parenting time and child support basics.

Who actually has to receive notice of a minor’s name change?

This is the question with the surprising answer.

Section 259.10, subd. 1, says “no minor child’s name may be changed without both parents having notice.” A district court read that to mean both biological parents. The Court of Appeals reversed.

In In re the Matter of the Application of J.M.M. o/b/o Minors for a Change of Name, 890 N.W.2d 750 (Minn. App. 2017), a mother of three children applied to change their surnames from their biological father’s surname to her own. He was not on the birth certificates, had never been married to her, had never been adjudicated a parent, paid no support, and had not seen the children in years; she alleged he had threatened to kill her and her family. The district court dismissed the applications for failure to give him notice. The court of appeals held:

We hold that, for purposes of the name-change act, notice is required to be given to a biological father only if he has a parent-child relationship under the Minnesota Parentage Act.

Id. at 756 (citing Minn. Stat. § 257.54). The court reasoned in part from the adoption act: a natural father who has not been named on the birth record, supported the child, been adjudicated the parent, signed a recognition of parentage, filed a paternity action, or registered with the adoption registry is not entitled to notice of an adoption — and “[i]t would be illogical to require notice of a proposed name change to a father who would not be entitled even to notice of a pending adoption.” Id. at 755. On the constitutional side, the court noted that a putative father who fails to “accept some measure of responsibility for the child’s future” has no protected interest in preserving the parent-child relationship, and “is unlikely to have any due-process interest in a name-change application.” Id.

Three cautions before anyone treats J.M.M. as a shortcut.

1. It is not a license to omit. The court directed that on remand the district court “shall consider and determine whether the biological father satisfies the criteria of the parentage act,” and that a court “should exercise its discretion to determine the credibility and sufficiency of factual support provided by an applicant to justify the notice provided or not provided in a given case and may make further inquiry as necessary to assure itself that the applicant is forthcoming with relevant information.” Id. at 756.
2. False statements are criminal. The opinion’s final footnote points at § 259.10, subd. 1’s misdemeanor for a false statement made with intent to defraud. Id. at 756 n.4.
3. Establishing parentage flips the analysis. Under Minn. Stat. § 257.54, the parent-child relationship with a biological father “may be established under sections 257.51 to 257.74 or 257.75” — which includes a recognition of parentage. Once it exists, notice is required. See the Minnesota Parentage Act, chapter 257.

Where the reason for wanting a name change is fear of the other person, the name-change file is only one of several records that need attention, and it is usually not the most urgent one. See harassment restraining orders in Minnesota and orders for protection versus HROs.

Restoring a former name after a divorce

Two statutes, and the second one is free.

During the dissolution. Minn. Stat. § 518.27 provides that “[e]xcept as provided in section 259.13, in the final decree of dissolution or legal separation the court shall, if requested by a party, change the name of that party to another name as the party requests.” The court must grant the request “unless it finds that there is an intent to defraud or mislead,” and must notify the parties that using a different surname after dissolution without complying with § 259.13, where applicable, “is a gross misdemeanor.” The new name “shall be so designated in the final decree.”

Note the breadth: § 518.27 says “another name as the party requests,” not “the name you had before the marriage.” Requesting the change in the decree is nearly always the cheapest correct answer, and it costs nothing beyond the dissolution itself. If the dissolution is still ahead of you, see our discussion of the routes through it in Minnesota’s summary dissolution process.

After the dissolution. If the request was not made in the decree, Minn. Stat. § 259.14 — added in 2023 — provides a dedicated postdissolution route. A person who has resided in Minnesota at least six months and obtained a final dissolution “may apply to the district court in the county where the person resides to change the person’s name to the legal name on the person’s birth certificate,” submitting a certified certificate of dissolution under § 518.148 and a certified birth certificate. An out-of-state divorce works too, with a certified certificate of dissolution “or a certified copy of an equivalent court order ending the marriage.”

Section 259.14 strips out two of the § 259.10 burdens:

(b) A court shall not require a person applying for a name change to pay filing fees for an application submitted pursuant to this section. Notwithstanding section 259.10, a court shall not require the person applying for a name change pursuant to this section to provide proof of the person’s identity by two witnesses unless the proof of identity is necessary to determine whether the person has an intent to defraud or mislead the court.

The court “shall grant the application” unless it finds intent to defraud or mislead the court, or the request is subject to § 259.13. § 259.14(c). And recall § 259.11(c)(3): a § 259.14 application is exempt from the criminal-history-check and BCA-reporting machinery.

The limit is in the words “to the legal name on the person’s birth certificate.” Section 259.14 restores; it does not rename. Someone who wants a name they have never held must use § 259.10.

Confidentiality

Chapter 259 contains one sealing provision, and it is narrow. Minn. Stat. § 259.10, subd. 2, provides that where the court determines a name change “is made in connection with the individual’s participation in a witness and victim protection program, the court shall order that the court records of the name change are not accessible to the public,” releasable on request only “to a law enforcement agency, probation officer, or corrections agent conducting a lawful investigation.” It adds that “[t]he existence of an application for a name change described in this subdivision may not be disclosed except to a law enforcement agency conducting a lawful investigation.”

Outside that subdivision, the Change of Name Act does not itself provide for sealing. Litigants seeking confidentiality on other grounds are asking the court to exercise authority found elsewhere, and that request should be made expressly and supported — not assumed. Note that the J.M.M. district court treated sealing the file as one of the tools available to address a safety concern, and the court of appeals recited that without disturbing it, 890 N.W.2d at 753 — but the appeal was resolved on the notice question, not on sealing.

What it costs

• General § 259.10 application: the ordinary district court civil filing fee. Minn. Stat. § 357.021, subd. 2(1), sets that fee at $310 for “the plaintiff, petitioner, or other moving party,” “when the first paper is filed for that party.” Subdivision 2 has no separate name-change line item. Add the county recorder and court administrator fees required by § 259.11(a) if land is described, and any BCA fingerprint fee the court incurs under § 259.11(b).
• In a dissolution under § 518.27: nothing beyond the dissolution.
• Postdissolution under § 259.14: nothing. “A court shall not require a person applying for a name change to pay filing fees.”
• With a marriage license under § 517.08: the license fee, which § 517.08, subd. 1b(a), sets at $125, reduced to $50 under subd. 1b(b) for parties who complete at least 12 hours of qualifying premarital education and submit the required signed, dated, and notarized (or church-sealed) statement.
• Fee waiver: for a § 259.10 application, Minn. Stat. § 563.01, subd. 3, allows a court to authorize a civil action without payment of fees on affidavit of financial inability, with a presumption of eligibility for a person “who has an annual income not greater than 125 percent of the poverty line established under United States Code, title 42, section 9902(2).” Note that § 259.12 and § 259.13, subd. 5(a), each override ordinary in forma pauperis treatment for their respective applicants, allowing it “only when the failure to allow the name change would infringe on a constitutional right.”

Madgett Law, LLC

Madgett Law, LLC handles Minnesota name-change matters — adult applications under Minn. Stat. § 259.10, contested minor name changes under the Robinson and Saxton standards, notice questions under In re J.M.M., name changes inside a dissolution under § 518.27, and applications complicated by a criminal record under § 259.13. If your situation involves a safety concern, a felony conviction, an objecting parent, or Minnesota real estate, the choice of statute is a real decision and it is worth making deliberately. Call 612-470-6529 or send us a message.

Sources: Minn. Stat. § 259.10, subd. 1 (six-month residency; county of residence; spouse and minor children; land description; personal appearance and two witnesses; application by guardian or next of kin for a minor; § 518.148 certificate of dissolution as conclusive evidence; misdemeanor for a false statement made with intent to defraud; proviso requiring both parents to have notice of a minor’s application “whenever practicable”), subd. 2 (witness and victim protection name changes; records not accessible to the public; nondisclosure of the existence of the application); § 259.11(a) (mandatory grant subject to three exceptions; contents of the order; recording with the county recorder and county auditor; fees payable before filing or issuance of certified copies; no denial on the basis of marital status), (b) (mandatory determination of criminal history; permissive FBI/BCA fingerprint search; ten-day reporting duty on both court and applicant; explanation required in the order; gross misdemeanor for failure to report), (c)(1)–(3) (exemptions for § 517.08 marriage licenses, § 518.27 dissolution name changes, and § 259.14 applications); § 259.12 (inmate may apply only once during confinement; in forma pauperis only on a constitutional showing); § 259.13, subd. 1(a)–(c) (notice to the prosecuting authority; additional notice to the attorney general for out-of-state or federal convictions; proof of service; 30-day hold; marriage license not delayed), subd. 2 (30-day objection window and the four permitted grounds), subd. 3 (clear-and-convincing burden on the applicant’s motion), subd. 4 (mandatory grant where denial would infringe a constitutional right), subd. 5(a)–(b) (in forma pauperis limit; 180-day post-marriage filing-fee exemption with a certified marriage certificate), subd. 6 (gross misdemeanor); § 259.14(a)–(c) (postdissolution restoration to the birth-certificate name; documents required; no filing fees; no two-witness requirement absent a fraud concern; mandatory grant subject to two exceptions); § 518.27 (name of party in the final decree; mandatory grant on request unless intent to defraud or mislead; § 259.13 notice; gross-misdemeanor warning); § 517.08, subd. 1a(7)–(9) (post-marriage names on the application; felony conviction bars name change through the marriage application process; required notice), subd. 1b(a)–(b) ($125 license fee; $50 fee with 12 hours of premarital education; no legal impediment “including the restriction contained in section 259.13”); § 257.54 (how the parent and child relationship is established); § 357.021, subd. 2(1) ($310 civil filing fee); § 563.01, subd. 3 (fee waiver; 125% of the federal poverty line presumption). Cases: Robinson v. Hansel, 302 Minn. 34, 35, 36, 38, 223 N.W.2d 138, 140 (1974) (standing of the objecting parent; “great caution” and “clear and compelling that the substantial welfare of the child necessitates such change”; child’s later voluntary change); In re Saxton, 309 N.W.2d 298, 301–02 (Minn. 1981) (neither parent has a superior right to the initial surname; five non-exclusive best-interests considerations; court should set out its reasons; guardian ad litem encouraged; error to exclude the children’s testimony, harmless on that record); In re Marriage of Jacobs, 309 N.W.2d 303 (Minn. 1981) (cited in Saxton for the no-superior-right proposition); LaChapelle v. Mitten, 607 N.W.2d 151, 166 (Minn. App. 2000) (restatement of the five Saxton factors); Foster v. Foster, 802 N.W.2d 755, 757–58 (Minn. App. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion review; allocation of the burden to the objecting parent; application of the five factors; appellate court will not reweigh the evidence); In re Welfare of C.M.G., 516 N.W.2d 555, 561 (Minn. App. 1994) (district court must set forth clear and compelling reasons for its decision); In re the Matter of the Application of J.M.M. o/b/o Minors for a Change of Name, 890 N.W.2d 750, 753, 755–56 & n.4 (Minn. App. 2017) (notice to a biological father required only where he has a parent-child relationship under the Parentage Act; remand for that determination; district court to assess credibility and sufficiency of the applicant’s factual support).

This article is general legal information about Minnesota law. It is not legal advice, it does not create an attorney–client relationship, and no particular outcome is promised or implied. Statutes, rules, and case law change; verify current text before relying on any provision discussed here.