Select Page

Conflicts of Law
West Virginia University School of Law
McLaughlin, James A.

RST 2nd § 11 – Domicile
“Domicile” is a place, usually [but not always] a person’s home, to which the conflict rules accord determinative significance b/c of the persons [mental] identification w/ that place.
Every person has a domicile at all times and no person has more than one domicile at any time.
RST 2nd § 12 – Home [usually = domicile but remember a person can have more than one home but not more than one domicile] Home is the place where the person dwells
Comment (c) – factors for determining if person’s dwelling place = home
Time he spends there
Things he does there
His mental attitude that the place is his home
His intention to return when absent
How many other dwelling places he has
Holmes – domicile is “a person’s preeminent headquarters”
Domicile results from a person’s physical and mental relationship to a place. A person’s domicile is usually the place where the person “hangs their hat” (i.e. where the person has a mental and physical connection to as their home).
Domicile Rules
1.       Person may have residence in one place and domicile in another (In re Estate of Jones)
2.       Person may have more than one residence, but only one domicile (id)
3.       Person must always have a domicile, but not always have a residence (id)
4.       Until a person obtains a new domicile, such person retains their old domicile even if the person has subjectively given it up (JM)
5.       When a person moves, his domicile does not switch instantaneously, but rather his domicile switches to the new place only when the person actually believes the new place is his headquarters (i.e. he actually establishes a residence and spends enough time there until it becomes his “home”) (Majority opinion compared to the minority view in White v. Tennant (WV) that domicile switches instantaneously when a person leaves their former home w/ no intention of returning, no matter how long the person ends up staying at their new home).
6.       Person’s expression of desire (“I live in WV”) does not supersede the effect of the person’s conduct (in reality my actions suggest that I live in PA). When person’s intent and actions contradict, actions control. Look at totality of person’s actions.
The state in which the court sits must have some connection or relationship (“minimum contacts”) w/ the Δ or his property in order to properly exercise personal jurisdiction (“PJ”) over him (Buchanan v. Rucker (Eng)). If court presiding does not have PJ over Δ then a judgment against Δ is invalid (RST 2nd Judgments § 1) and violates his right not to be deprived of property w/out due process (14th Amendment).   If court presiding does have PJ over Δ, then such court’s final judgment is valid and enforceable against Δ in all states (FF&C Clause)
For Exam: 1st question always to ask – does the forum court have PJ over the Δ? 
PJ Rules
For a court to exercise territorial PJ on an out-of-state Δ, the Δ must have (1)regular, systematic, and continuous minimum contacts with the forum state in which the court sits (2) so that the court’s extension of territorial PJ over the out-of-state Δ does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.(Int’l Shoe)
Fair Play and Substantial Justice Factors
                                                               i.      Inconvenience to the Δ if made to defend in the forum state
                                                             ii.      Inconvenience to the Π if made to litigate in another state
                                                            iii.      Forum states interest in the litigation
                                                           iv.      Interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining an efficient resolution
                                                             v.      Interest of the several states in furthering fundamental social policies (Asahi Metal – plurality)

f Δ is physically present in forum state and served w/ process, then Int’l Shoe is met w/ no more, even if the suit is totally unrelated to Δ’s presence in the forum state.
Brennan – agrees w/ Scalia, but also requires the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice test b/4 transient jurisdiction satisfies Int’l Shoe.
PJ can be waived by Δ [subject matter jurisdiction can not] State Long-Arm Statutes – state long codification of Int’l Shoe and prodigy – two types: (1) those that direct state courts to exercise PJ to the extent allowed by the 14th Amendment (as per the federal standards above), and (2) those that enumerate what acts by the Δ will subject Δ to PJ in the forum state (but can not go beyond what is allowed under the 14th Amendment)
D/P also requires that Δ be given Notice & Opportunity to Respond b/4 a judgment in the forum state is reached.
Notice – is the method of notice chosen reasonably likely to actually reach Δ, and if notice is not actually given to Δ, was the ultimate method chosen for notice the best method in hopes of providing Δ w/ notice? (Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank)
Opp to Respond – Matthews balancing of (1) the rights of Δ, (2) the governmental interest, and (3) the risk of erroneous decision
JM on PJ and “minimum contacts” – PJ w/out minimum contacts is unfair b/c:
Δ has no notice
No reciprocity – person should not be subjected to laws of forum state unless such person has received some type of benefit through his dealings in or with the forum state
Inconvenience on Δ
Lack of representation
Δ would be “serving two masters”