Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffjurisdictionstatutedivorce
plaintiffjurisdictionstatutetrialdivorce

Related Cases

Hornblower v. Hornblower, 151 Conn.App. 332, 94 A.3d 1218
View Case »
Hambrecht & Quist Venture Partners v. American Medical Internat., Inc., 38 Cal.App.4th 1532, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 33, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7901, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,500
View Case »
Pain v. United Technologies Corp., 637 F.2d 775, 205 U.S.App.D.C. 229
View Case »
Oltarsh v. Aetna Ins. Co., 15 N.Y.2d 111, 204 N.E.2d 622, 256 N.Y.S.2d 577
View Case »
Lombardi v. Van Deusen, 938 N.E.2d 219
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Sasse v. Sasse, 41 Wash.2d 363, 249 P.2d 380

Facts

The parties were married in 1942 while the husband was in military service. They lived in Pennsylvania until the husband was assigned to Spokane, Washington, in 1947. The couple rented an apartment in Spokane in 1950, but the wife returned to Pennsylvania after the husband was assigned overseas. The husband testified that he intended to make Spokane his permanent home, and he remained there until he filed for divorce in July 1951.

He commenced this action July 31, 1951. … He did not change that domicile after its acquisition, and remained in the state, except for temporary absences or military duty, for the statutory period before commencing his action.

Issue

Did the husband establish the statutory jurisdictional requirement of residency in Washington for filing a divorce?

Her principal contention is that he failed to establish the statutory jurisdictional requirement that ‘Any person who has been a resident of the state for one year may file his or her complaint for a divorce * * *.’ RCW 26.08.030 [cf. Rem.Supp.1949, § 997-3].

Rule

For purposes of jurisdiction in divorce actions, the statute requires that the state be the domicile of the plaintiff, which is established by physical presence and the intention to make it a permanent home.

We conclude that, for purposes of jurisdiction in divorce actions, the quoted portion of the statute shall be construed to require that this state be the domicile of the plaintiff.

Analysis

The court found substantial evidence that the husband had established his domicile in Washington in April 1950. His physical presence, the act of establishing a dwelling place, and his intention to make Spokane his permanent home were supported by credible evidence. The court concluded that the husband met the jurisdictional requirement for divorce as he remained in the state for the statutory period before filing his action.

In this case, there is substantial evidence that this state became the domicile of plaintiff in April, 1950. The act of establishing a dwelling place, his physical presence here, and his intention to make it his permanent home, were shown by credible evidence, both of his statements and his conduct.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the lower court's decree, concluding that the husband had satisfied the jurisdictional requirements for divorce.

The decree is affirmed.

Who won?

Husband; he prevailed because the court found that he had established domicile in Washington for the required period, satisfying the jurisdictional requirements for divorce.

The trial court was not in error in concluding that he had met the jurisdictional requirement in question.

You must be