G. A. Van L. v. P. E. Van L.

• Decision Date: 17 April 1980
• Citation: 415 A.2d 519
• Parties: G. A. Van L., Husband, Petitioner, v. P. E. Van L., Wife, Respondent.
• Court: Delaware Family Court

Page 519

415 A.2d 519

G. A. Van L., Husband, Petitioner, v. P. E. Van L., Wife, Respondent.

Family Court of Delaware, New Castle County.

Submitted April 3, 1980.

Decided April 17, 1980.

John B. Kennedy, Wilmington, for petitioner.

Richard Allen Paul, Wilmington, for respondent.

WAKEFIELD, Judge.

This is the Court's decision in this contested divorce action brought by the Husband against the Wife on grounds of incompatibility. All of the allegations of the petition were admitted by the Wife and proved at trial except for petitioner's domicile on which issue the Court reserved jurisdiction.

It appears from the testimony of the parties that they had lived for some time in northern New Jersey until about five years ago when the Husband, who is a travelling salesman, was assigned to an office in Broomall, Pennsylvania. His new sales area included eastern Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia and parts of Virginia. The parties looked for living quarters in Maryland and Delaware before finally locating in Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania, largely because both sets of parents lived there and because of the proximity of Drexel Hill to the Husband's office in Broomall. A year or two later, the Husband's parents moved to Brandywine Hundred in Delaware.

The Husband left the marital domicile in Pennsylvania on March 6, 1979 and moved immediately to the home of his parents in Brandywine Hundred. He later signed a lease for an apartment in northern Brandywine Hundred, not far from the Pennsylvania line, which ran from July 1, 1979 to June 30, 1980. It would appear that the apartment is inexpensively and sparsely furnished.

So-called "laundry list" items tending to establish Delaware residence are:

1. April 1, 1979 joined Greater Wilmington Chapter, Parents without Partners.

2. May 1, 1979 opened savings account at Wilmington Savings Fund Society.

3. May 23, 1979 obtained Delaware driver's license.

4. July 1, 1979 signed one year lease on unfurnished apartment referred to above.

5. Date unknown, 1980 filed partial-year Delaware income tax return.

6. March 19, 1980 registered to vote in Delaware.

7. March 29, 1980 signed lease for house in Fairfax for one year commencing May 1, 1980.

Petitioner claims that he has no bank accounts other than his Delaware account, that his only charge or credit card bills are sent to his Delaware address, that he purchases his clothes in Delaware, that he has attended about 20 movies here, and that he has picked up several important new business accounts with Delaware companies because of his closer proximity to them. While he still uses a Pennsylvania dentist convenient to the Broomall office, he has seen a Delaware physician. He claims that, while his commute to the Broomall office is slightly longer than from Drexel Hill, he only goes there twice a week and that his Delaware residence really places him closer to most of his territory, particularly Baltimore where he spends a great deal of time.

Crucial to this case and distinguishing it from many others are two factors: (1) Husband's parents live in Delaware not far from his present residence and also near the Fairfax property he has rented commencing May 1, 1980; (2) He is engaged to marry one S. S. M. on May 17, 1980 if this divorce is granted.

With respect to the latter point, the said S. S. M. is divorced and she shares custody of her children with her former husband. Since S. S. M. presently lives alone in Newark, Delaware, her ex-husband, who also lives in Fairfax, has the primary care of the children. The principal reason for renting the house in Fairfax is to enable S. S. M. to be nearer to and spend more time with her children, to permit her to live in the same school district as the children, and to make exchanges of custody easier on the children and herself.

Although the Wife has orally cited the Delaware Supreme Court decision in Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), Del.Supr., 402 A.2d 1202 (1979) as applied by this Court in Husband B. v. Wife B., Del.Fam., unreported, No. 943-79 (October 29, 1979), in support of her contention that the Husband has not established domicile, the facts of this case are quite different. In B. v. B., supra, the petitioner-Husband worked full-time in Pennsylvania, had no present intention to marry a Delaware resident with children in Delaware and, although he had purchased a home, all on borrowed money, he really had no other roots here.

The case at bar presents a rather unique situation where the petitioner's strongest argument is based, not on his own Delaware "deep roots," but upon the strong ties his fiance has in this State. Absent that, I would, without hesitation, hold that he has not established sufficiently deep roots in Delaware to come within the statutory residence requirements. But the evidence concerning his future plans convinces me that, at...