Taylor v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 17 June 1975 |
| Citation | 362 A.2d 795,168 Conn. 619 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Grace D. TAYLOR v. William T. TAYLOR. |
Robert N. Shea, Niantic, with whom, on the brief, were Melvin Scott and Narcyz Dubicki, New London, for appellant (defendant).
Thomas B. Wilson, Groton, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before HOUSE, C.J., and LOISELLE, MacDONALD, LONGO and BARBER, JJ.
This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment granting the plaintiff a divorce on the grounds of intolerable cruelty, awarding her alimony of one dollar per year and ordering the conveyance to her of the defendant's interest in the jointly owned property of the parties. The defendant's basic claims are that the court erred: (1) in refusing to recognize the validity of a prior decree of divorce granted to the defendant in Mississippi on the ground that the defendant was not a bona fide resident of that state; (2) in granting a divorce to the plaintiff in the absence of any finding of intolerable cruelty; and (3) in awarding alimony to the plaintiff and transferring to her the defendant's interest in the jointly owned property.
To the defendant's special defense that a Mississippi court had dissolved the marriage prior to the date of the trial in Connecticut, as evidenced by a certified copy of the Mississippe decree, the plaintiff filed a reply alleging that the Mississippi court lacked jurisdiction to enter that decree because neither party was an actual bona fide resident of the state of Mississippi for one year prior to the commencement of the Mississippi action as required by the laws of that state. Although the court found that the defendant left Connecticut in the summer of 1971 to take employment in Mississippi, purchased a house and lot in Mississippi in August, 1971, and did not return to Connecticut until December, 1972, for the purpose of attending the trial of this action, it concluded that '(t)he defendant failed to prove that he was a bona fide resident of the State of Mississippi for one year prior to the commencement of this suit for divorce in said state' in August, 1972, and that '(s)ince the Mississippi court was without jurisdiction to grant a decree of divorce (to) the defendant, the Court was not required to give the Mississippi Court Decree full faith and credit.'
It is obvious from the specific wording of the finding as well as from the language in the memorandum of decision that the court erroneously imposed upon the defendant the burden of proving that he was a bona fide resident of the state of Mississippi for the one-year period prior to the commencement of his divorce action necessary to give the Mississippi court jurisdiction to grant a valid decree. The plaintiff's reply to the special defense alleged that the Mississippi court lacked jurisdiction and it has been clearly stated by this court in Rice v. Rice, 134 Conn. 440, 447, 58 A.2d 523, aff'd, 336 U.S. 674, 69 S.Ct. 751, 93 L.Ed. 957, following Williams v. North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226, 234, 65 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed. 1577, that the burden of proving an allegation of lack of jurisdiction under circumstances similar to those involved here falls upon the party making that claim-in this instance, the plaintiff, who introduced no evidence whatsoever to dispute the fact that the defendant was properly domiciled in Mississippi at the time he commenced his divorce action there or that he had been a resident there for more than one year prior to that time. Rather, the plaintiff apparently relied upon her claim that the defendant, by admitting the allegation in the complaint that '(t)he address . . . of the defendant (is) 214 Niantic River Road, Waterford, Connecticut,' judicially admitted that he was still a resident of Connecticut. The defendant at that time shared with the plaintiff ownership of the property located at that address. An 'address' is not domicil, and a person may have simultaneously two or more residence addresses but only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spalding v. Spalding
...Williams v. North Corolina, 317 U.S. 287, 297, 63 S.Ct. 207, 87 L.Ed. 279, hereinafter referred to as Williams I; Taylor v. Taylor, 168 Conn. 619, 621, 362 A.2d 795; White v. White, 138 Conn. 1, 8, 81 A.2d 450; see annot., 28 A.L.R.2d 1303, 1304-17. And durational domicil or residency requi......
-
Smith v. Smith
...two or more residence addresses but only one domicil at any one time. Clegg v. Bishop,105 Conn. 564, 570, 136 A. 102." Taylor v. Taylor, 168 Conn. 619, 621, 362 A.2d 795. The plaintiff also argues that the New York address given by the defendant in the New York proceeding was the address of......
-
Gross v. Rell
...have two or more residences but only one domicile at any one time. Smith, 174 Conn. at 439, 389 A.2d 756; Taylor v. Taylor, 168 Conn. 619, 621, 362 A.2d 795 (1975). By way of contrast, a person may have a residence in a place in which he or she intends to live only temporarily. A resident o......
-
Remington v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co.
...considered. Furthermore, the focus of the charge was too narrow because a person may have more than one residence. Taylor v. Taylor, 168 Conn. 619, 621, 362 A.2d 795 (1975); see also Griffith v. Security Ins. Co., supra, 167 Conn. at 461, 356 A.2d 94 (Bogdanski, J., dissenting), and cases c......
-
Domicile, Residence and Citizenship
...105 Conn. 564, 136 A. 102 (1927); Boardman v. Boardman, 135 Conn. 124, 133, 62 A.2d 521, 13 A.L.R.2d 295 (1948); Taylor v. Taylor, 168 Conn. 619, 362 A.2d 795 (1975); Smith v. Smith, 174 Conn. 434, 389 A.2d 756 (1978). 14. see Town of Canaan v. Town of Salisbury, 1 Root 155 (Conn. Super. Ct......
-
Connecticut Family Law Jurisdiction
...In Labow, the Court construed a predecessor statute, CONN. GEN. STAT. § 46-35, that had language identical to § 46b44; Taylor v. Taylor, 168 Conn. 619, 621, 362 795, 797 (1975) (jurisdiction to grant a dissolution is founded on domicile and burden of proof is on party challenging the court'......