Schengen counting rules and name change [duplicate]

Question

My question is about counting the six-month period for a 90-day Schengen area visit:

Visit May 15 - June 5, 2014 (20 days) under name X
Visit Aug 28 - Sept 25, 2014 (29 days) under name X
Nov 11 marks end of 180 day period

Change name

Visit Dec 10, 2014 - Mar 10, 2015 (90 days) under new name, Y

Can I return in May?

If the first period ends Nov 11 and the new period starts Nov 12, then the next 180-day period would end May 11.

Am I eligible to return on May 12?

If my name change starts the count anew, I cannot return until mid-June. I should add I didn't intend to stay 90 days over the winter. I am traveling with two dogs and the temperatures in NY, USA were too cold safely to fly (not that it matters to Immigration).

Answer 1

Someone has to correct me if the following is wrong (which would surprise me): Name changes do not matter to the 90/180 rule. (I mean: why should they?). So the time window is not reset then.

But I'm actually writing this answer because of the following, which, from your post does not seem to be apparent to you: You already overstayed. In the time window from 29/08/14 to 24/02/15, you have been present in the Schengen area for 105 days, which is above the maximum for the 90 days rule.

The 90/180 rule states that within every time window of 180 days, you must not be present in the Schengen are for more that 90 days unless you are resident or hold a visa that allows you to do so. Visa-free entry with a US passport does not allow you to do that. There is no such thing as a "reset date" for the 180 day period. Now if you got a brand-new passport after your name change, you may be lucky and the border agents may not notice your overstay. That doesn't make your current stay legal, though.

If indeed the name change somehow magically makes you a different person for visa-free entry purposes, this answer is not valid. But I highly doubt so (again, why should there be an exception for this?), and hope that someone can leave a comment if this assumption is actually incorrect.