Wife (J. F. V.), v. Husband (O. W. V., Jr.)
Decision Date | 18 May 1979 |
Citation | 402 A.2d 1202 |
Parties | WIFE (J. F. V.), Respondent Below, Appellant, v. HUSBAND (O. W. V., JR.), Petitioner Below, Appellee. |
Court | Supreme Court of Delaware |
John T. Gallagher, of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, Wilmington, for respondent below, appellant.
Ralph F. Keil, Wilmington, for petitioner below, appellee.
Before HERRMANN, C. J., McNEILLY and HORSEY, JJ.
Respondent wife appeals from the decision of the Family Court holding that petitioner husband had satisfied the statutory jurisdictional requirements of 13 Del.C. § 1504 for divorce. 1 It is respondent's contention that the Trial Judge erred by basing the test of domicile on a "laundry list" approach rather than on a "deep roots" domiciliary approach required in this State by New York Trust Co. v. Riley, Del.Supr., 24 Del.Ch. 354, 16 A.2d 772 (1940) and its progeny. 2
The petitioner moved to Delaware from Reading, Pennsylvania into an apartment in northern New Castle County on a year to year lease basis. He registered to vote in Delaware, filed Delaware tax returns, opened Delaware bank accounts, joined local singing groups and a local church, registered his car and obtained a Delaware driver's license, joined the Dover Air Force Officers Club, and did the other obvious incidental things that one must do when becoming a resident in a new locality.
On the other hand, he did not give up his eleven year tenured teaching position in Reading, nor his interest in the home in Reading, left to him, his wife and sister by his parents. He continued to attend a course given at Temple University, shopped occasionally at the Naval Commissary in Philadelphia, visited his children in Reading on Sundays, and although he denies saying so, is said, by witnesses testifying before the Trial Judge, to have announced his intention to return to live in Reading as soon as he obtains a Delaware divorce.
By written opinion the Trial Judge detailed all these facts and circumstances as they appear in the record. The Trial Judge further drew his own inferences and conclusions from the recited facts explaining with specificity why he drew the inferences, why he accepted petitioner's statement of an intention to permanently live in Delaware, and why he was satisfied that petitioner met the domiciliary statutory jurisdictional requirements as mandated in Fritz v. Fritz, Del.Supr., 187 A.2d 348 (1962), a progeny of Riley.
Following this Court's decision in Wife W. v. Husband W., Del.Supr., 376 A.2d 87 (1977) it appears that some Judges of the Family Court have interpreted that case, in spite of our reference to Fritz v. Fritz, Supr.Ct., 187 A.2d 348 (1962), as approving the so-called "laundry list" residency approach, coupled with an expression of intent to make Delaware home on the part of the petitioner, as being sufficient to establish domicile and divorce jurisdiction. Others interpret the case as requiring a "deep roots" test, and we agree.
In an effort to establish more positive guidelines we cite New York Trust Co. v. Riley, Del.Supr., 16 A.2d 772 (1940) in which it was said .
On appeal from the Family Court our scope of review extends to a review of the facts and law as well as to a review of the inferences and deductions made by the Trial Judge. In exercising our power of review, we have the duty to review the sufficiency of the evidence and to test the propriety of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Solis v. Tea
...of the facts and law as well as to a review of the inferences and deductions made by the Trial Judge. Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), Del.Supr., 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (1979). We will not disturb findings of fact unless they are clearly wrong and justice requires their overturn. Id. Mo......
-
Forrester v. Forrester
...divided Wife's State of Delaware Defined Benefit Pension Plan in the same manner. Id. at 14. 7. Id. at 12. 8. Wife J.F.V. v. Husband O.W.V., Jr., 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del.1979). 9. Mundy v. Devon, 906 A.2d 750, 752 (Del. 2006) (citing In re Heller, 669 A.2d 25, 29 (Del. 10. W. v. W., 339 A.......
-
Smith v. Gordon, 94, 2008.
...Gordon v. Smith, File No. CN04-08601, Pet. No. 04-20625, 2007 WL 5158172 (Del. Fam.Ct. Mar. 30, 2007). 12. Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del. 1979). See also Green v. Green, 2008 WL 4696617, at *3 13. Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d 1276, 1279 (Del. 1983). See also Gre......
-
Mundy v. Devon
...the standards set forth in § 722 of this title.") 3. Del.Code Ann. tit. 13, § 722(a) (1999 & Supp.2004). 4. Wife (J.F.V.) v. Husband (O.W.V., Jr.), 402 A.2d 1202, 1204 (Del.1979). 5. In re Heller, 669 A.2d 25, 29 (Del.1995). 6. Solis v. Tea, 468 A.2d 1276, 1279 (Del. 1983). 7. Id. 8. In re ......