Civil procedure; name change; petition; notice; repealer; effective date.
Summary
HB1110 is a narrow civil procedure bill that repeals Oklahoma Statutes Title 12, Section 1633. That section currently governs notice requirements for the filing of a petition for a name change. By repealing the statute, the bill would remove that specific notice provision from state law, leaving the legal framework for name-change filings without this section in place unless another statute or rule applies.
The bill is short and does not create a new procedure or substitute language; it simply deletes the existing notice-of-filing requirement tied to name-change petitions. The measure is set to take effect on November 1, 2025, if enacted. Its practical effect would be on courts, petitioners seeking legal name changes, and any parties who rely on the current notice process.
Impact
HB1110 would amend Oklahoma civil procedure law by repealing 12 O.S. 2021, Section 1633, the statute addressing notice of filing a petition for a name change. This would remove that statutory notice requirement from the books and could change how name-change petitions are processed in district courts, particularly with respect to notice to interested parties or the public. The bill does not add replacement language, so its impact would be to eliminate an existing procedural rule rather than establish a new one.
Sentiment
There is limited recorded discussion or voting history available for HB1110, so overall sentiment cannot be measured from committee debate or floor votes. Based on the bill’s referral to the Civil Judiciary Committee and its straightforward repealer language, the measure appears to be a technical or procedural change rather than a broadly controversial policy proposal. No opposition or support is documented in the provided materials.
Contention
The main point of contention, if any, would likely concern the policy implications of removing notice requirements for name-change petitions. Supporters may view repeal as simplifying the process and reducing unnecessary procedural burdens, while critics may worry that eliminating notice could reduce transparency or limit opportunities for affected parties to object. However, the provided record contains no committee transcript or vote data showing that these concerns were formally raised.