91 F.3d 121 (1st Cir. 1996), 95-1933, Francis v. Goodman
|Citation:||91 F.3d 121|
|Party Name:||Ingrid A.M. FRANCIS and Robert Francis, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. David GOODMAN and Karen Dunnett, Defendants, Appellees.|
|Case Date:||August 01, 1996|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA1 Rule 36 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Loretta M. Smith, with whom Charles A. Goglia, Jr. and William E. Ryckman, Jr. were on brief for appellants.
Hilary B. Miller for appellees.
TORRUELLA, Chief Judge, COFFIN, Senior Circuit Judge, and CYR, Circuit Judge.
CYR, Circuit Judge.
Following our remand for findings of fact and conclusions of law, see Francis v. Goodman, 81 F.3d 5 (1st Cir.1996), the district court found that Rose had established the predicate for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (1994), id. at 6-7. As its determination that Rose intended to remain a New York domiciliary is not clearly erroneous, Lundquist v. Precision Valley Aviation, Inc., 946 F.2d 8, 11 (1st Cir.1991), we affirm the district court judgment.
The district court considered the appropriate factors in determining Rose's domiciliary intent. See Bank One, Tex., N.A. v. Montle, 964 F.2d 48, 50 (1st Cir.1992) (listing factors), opinion after remand, 974 F.2d 220 (1st Cir.1992). Although Rose owned a home, practiced law, and lived on Nantucket for a number of years, he owned a home in New York (where he kept his most valuable possessions), retained his bar membership and driver's license in New York, and maintained the bulk of his bank and investment accounts, filed tax returns, and continued to vote in New York by absentee ballot, see id. (voter registration a "weighty" factor). The district court thus possessed diversity jurisdiction. See Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985) ("Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.").
In 1984, Francis and her son inherited a commercial property on Main Street, Nantucket. She met Rose in August 1985 and an intimate relationship developed. Rose obtained a Benetton clothing franchise in late 1985, and asked Francis if...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP