Domicile
First Restatement of Conflicts
§§ 9-16, 18-21, 23, 25, 27, 41
Domicile is either where a person has settled (typically where their home is), or the place where the law determines. If it is by where the law determines, the forum state’s laws will define domicile. A party only has one domicile and a corporation has domicile in the state where they are incorporated.
Ultimately, this definition is summarized into two parts: 1) physical presence with 2) the intent to remain intentionally.
Domicile is usually not used, but has a time and a place. This usually occurs when the actions are people centered (e.g., will’s a trusts).
White v. Tennant
31 W. Va. 790 (1888).
White is the plaintiff who lost and appealed.
Question
Whose laws govern, Pennsylvania or West Virginia? If Pennsylvania, half the estate goes to the plaintiffs. If West Virginia, all of the estate goes to the widow.
Rule
The law of your domicile governs. Your domicile is where you have your home and have the intent to remain there indefinitely.
Holding
The domicile changed to Pennsylvania. Reversed.
Facts
White and his wife sold their home in West Virginia and began to settle in a home the purchased in Pennsylvania. Because the home in Pennsylvania was cold, they returned to West Virginia for the night. The wife fell ill and White returned to the farm daily to care for the stock and stayed the nights in West Virginia to care for his wife Eventually, White contracted Typhoid fever and died in West Virginia.
Analysis
White did everything to show that he had established a home in Pennsylvania. As such, his domicile changed to Pennsylvania when they moved there. There was no other point where he considered moving from Pennsylvania back to West Virginia (missing intent), it was still his home, despite becoming ill and passing in West Virginia.
Additional Notes
Here, this is a probate court with an intestate death. As such, we are using the decedent’s domicile to determine who gets what. Domicile makes sense to use because you want to make sure that there is uniformity of where the action takes place (makes it easier to avoid issues with parties traveling).
Also consider Rodriguez Diaz v. Sierra Martinez, 853 F.2d 1027 (1st Cir. 1988).
Marriage
First Restatement of Conflicts
§§ 121-23, 128-30, 132-34, 136-141
As long as the marriage was valid in the state where the marriage was formed, it will be recognized anywhere (unless they travel to another state to avoid the laws of their domicile or there is a strong public policy reason against it).
Chassemi v. Ghassemi
998 So. 2d 731 (La. Ct. App. 2008).
Ms. Ghassemi lost and appealed.
Question
Whether an Iranian marriage between first cousins will be recognized within Louisiana. Answering this question will determine whether Ms. Ghassemi is allowed to get a divorce, child support, and partian of property.
Rule
If the marriage is valid in the state of celebration, then it will be recognized in Louisiana unless it is a violation of strong public policy.
Holding
The marriage was valid in Iran, and there is no evidence showing that it is a violation of strong public policy to prohibit such a marriage.
Facts
Mr. and Ms. Ghassemi are first cousins that were married in Iran and had a child within that marriage. Mr. Ghassemi came to the United States on an education visa, promising to bring his wife and son over when he had the means to do so. While in the United States, he became married, obtained a divorce, then married another. He prepared the paperwork to bring his son to the United States, but not Ms. Ghassemi. Ms. Ghassemi was able to come to the United States because her son completed the paperwork. Once, in Louisiana, she sued, asking for a divorce, child support, and division of property.
Because Iran was a sworn enemy of the United States, the trial court refused to recognize any Iranian marriages. Additionally, even if it did, this marriage would have been in violation of Louisiana law and would be been invalid (first cousins are not allowed to marry).
Analysis
According to Iranian law, first cousins are allowed to marry. As such, this is a valid Iranian marriage. Additionally, although the marriage is prohibited by law, there is no strong public policy keeping this marriage from occurring. This is true because Louisiana has ratified people married first cousins who were married in violation of the law. Other states don’t recognize this kind of prohibition, and others who do allow it under certain circumstances. All this information shows that although there is a public policy reason for not allowing this marriage, that reason is not strong. Consequently, this marriage is considered valid.
Additional Notes
Compare with In re May’s Estate, 305 N.Y. 486 (1953) where a niece and uncle were married in Rhode Island (allowed as a religious exception) but the lawsuit was filed in New York (not allowed). The question was whether the marriage was valid. Here, the court said that the legislature chose not to address marriages from everywhere, just New York. So, the marriage was considered valid in New York.
Purple v. Ezeonu
155 Mics. 2d 344 (N.Y.S. 1992).
Ezeonu was charged or rape.
Question
Whether a valid Nigerian wedding to a second wife would be considered a valid marriage in New York.
Rule
Generally, if the marriage is valid in the state of celebration, then it will be recognized in New York unless it is repugnant of public policy. Polygamy is considered a repugnant public policy in New York.
The rule is important because New York does not recognize rape if you are married to the woman. So it was important to determine whether the parties involved were married.
Holding
The marriage is void in New York. Thus, the marriage to the second woman cannot serve as a defense against rape.
Facts
The defendant was married before taking another wife in Nigeria under a Nigerian custom. He then had intimate relations with the second girl who accused him of rape. Consequently, the defendant is arguing that rape cannot have occurred because New York does not recognize rape between married parties.
Analysis
Although the marriage was valid in Nigeria, plural marriage is repugnant to public policy in New York. For these reasons, the court will not recognize the marriage and it cannot be used as a defense against the charged crime.
Additional Notes
The characterization here is “validity of marriage.” The connecting factor is that we look at the “celebration of marriage” unless there is an exception. Here, the exception is that this action was against a strong public policy, that is, polygamous relationships (also a crime).
Disclaimer
The content contained in this article may contain inaccuracies and is not intended to reflect the opinions, views, beliefs, or practices of any academic professor or publication. Instead, this content is a reflection on the author’s understanding of the law and legal practices.
