DocketNumber: No. FA99 035 95 96 S
Citation Numbers: 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 8734
Judges: CUTSUMPAS, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 7/2/1999
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
"A motion to dismiss tests, inter alia, whether, on the face of the record, the court is without jurisdiction." (Internal CT Page 8735 quotation marks omitted.) Johnson v. Department of Public Health,
The defendant moves to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The defendant argues that neither she nor the plaintiff are domiciliaries or residents of Connecticut. The plaintiff contends that Connecticut is the legal residence and domicile of both he and the defendant.
"An action for dissolution of a marriage obviously is a civil action. . . . The Superior Court has exclusive jurisdiction of all complaints seeking a dissolution of marriage. . . . Section
"Notwithstanding that . . . §
"A person may have simultaneously two or more residence addresses, but only one domicil at any one time." (Citations omitted.) Cugini v. Cugini,
"The burden of proving an allegation of lack of jurisdiction. . . . falls upon the party making the claim." Cuginiv. Cugini, supra,
Prior to determining whether this court has jurisdiction to grant a decree dissolving the parties' marriage, the threshold issue is whether the plaintiff or the defendant has established residency in this state to file a complaint for dissolution of a marriage. Here, the only evidence that the defendant has submitted to prove an allegation of lack of jurisdiction is an affidavit averring that she and the plaintiff have not resided in Connecticut since 1981 and that from 1981 through 1995, they have resided in various places including California, Illinois, Indiana, Virginia, Dominican Republic, and Taiwan. (Defendant's Affidavit, ¶ 6 a. — h.). The defendant further avers that from 1995 through the present as part of the plaintiff's employment with the Foreign Service, she and the plaintiff have resided in Beijing, China. (Defendant's Affidavit, ¶ 6 i.)
It should be noted that government employees such as "[a]mbassadors, ministers and consular officers generally do not CT Page 8737 gain or lose a domicil by their employment or duties." See Wheatv. Smith,
Despite the foregoing averments, the defendant has failed to submit to this court any evidence regarding the domicile or residence of she and/or the plaintiff. She has only stated that neither she nor the plaintiff are residents or domiciliaries of Connecticut.
"The question of whether a party is domiciled in Connecticut is one of fact and there is no hard and fast formula for making that determination. However, a number of factors have been identified which are frequently significant. They include the length of time of residence in this state, the place where the rest of the individual's family resides, the place where the individual is registered to vote, the place to which the individual returns after trips, the individual's statements relating to domicile or residency and the nature of any residences, e.g. house, apartment, rented room, etc. A temporary absence from the state will not prevent Connecticut from being a party's domicile, particularly where the absence is of a temporary nature and the individual always intended to return to the state." Practice Book § 16.3 (Connecticut Practice Series, Vol. 7, p. 124); see also Remington v. Aetna Casualty and SuretyCo.,
In his affidavit, the plaintiff makes various averments relating to the factors outlined above. The plaintiff avers that he resided in Connecticut for his entire life except for two years through 1981. (Plaintiff's Affidavit, ¶ 7). Upon entering the Foreign Service in 1988, the plaintiff listed and to this date continues to list his legal residence as well as his destination for "home leave" as Connecticut. (Plaintiff's CT Page 8738 Affidavit, ¶ 9). Both the plaintiff and the defendant are registered voters in Trumbull, Connecticut. (Plaintiff's Affidavit, ¶ 12). Both parties have held Connecticut driver's licenses since 1994. (Plaintiff's Affidavit, ¶ 13). The plaintiff and the defendant have jointly filed Connecticut state tax returns from 1995 up to and including 1998 and both have current wills based on Connecticut law. (Plaintiff's Affidavit, ¶ 10, 14). Lastly, the plaintiff avers that he considers Connecticut to be his home and the place of his domicile; he has not abandoned his domicile in Connecticut nor has he established a domicile in any other state or country; and Connecticut is the state to which he intends to return on a permanent basis upon his retirement. (Plaintiff's Affidavit, ¶ 15)
Based on the conglomeration of factors the court considers in determining residence, based on the evidence presented by the plaintiff, and based on the failure of the defendant to submit proof to the court of the plaintiff's or her new domicile, Connecticut is the residence and/or domicile of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff has satisfied subsection (a) of General Statutes §
The next issue is to determine whether this court has the jurisdiction to enter a decree dissolving the marriage. Pursuant to General Statutes §
General Statutes §
Based on the foregoing, the court has jurisdiction to enter a decree dissolving the marriage, and the motion to dismiss is denied.
CUTSUMPAS, J.