Domicile and Residency Rules in an Arizona Divorce
Posted on : April 3, 2018, By: Christopher Hildebrand
Domicile and Residency Rules in an Arizona Divorce
The Short Answer
The answer to the residency requirements to file a divorce in Arizona is that you have to be a resident of Arizona for at least 90 days prior to filing for divorce. The answer gets a bit more complicated if the spouse filing for divorce is not actually living in Arizona when the divorce is filed. The Arizona Court of Appeals in a memorandum decision in the case of Vilaysane v. Vilaysane addressed when a person may still be an Arizona resident even if they are not currently living in Arizona. Read on to learn more about the decision in the Vilaysane v. Vilaysane case.
The Long Answer
Do you need some guidance on the domicile and residency rules in an Arizona divorce? The answer to your question was answered by the Arizona Court of Appeals in a memorandum decision in the case of Vilaysane vs. Vilaysane. The Court of Appeals had to address the issue of whether a spouse meets the residency requirement in Arizona when they have moved from the state of Arizona for the purpose of employment. The following is the Arizona Court of Appeals decision on that issue.
This appeal addresses whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction over a petition for dissolution of marriage, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 25-312(1). Respondent Nalida O. Vilaysane (“Wife”) appeals from the superior court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the following reasons, we vacate the superior court’s dismissal of the petition and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
Domicile and Residency Rules in an Arizona Divorce.
After Sengchanh Vilaysane (“Husband”) retired from the military in 2008, Wife and Husband moved from Hawaii to Arizona in late 2008 because of uncertainty about Husband’s future career. By 2009, Husband started working as a civilian for the Department of Defense in Hawaii. Wife, however, resided in Arizona from Husband’s 2008 military retirement until Husband was assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Laos in 2014. The wife then joined him in Laos, and they lived at the embassy. The wife returned to Arizona in July 2016, but Husband continued to reside and still resides, in Laos.
In August 2016, Husband petitioned the Arizona courts for dissolution of marriage, asserting that both parties had “lived” in the State of Arizona for at least 90 days before the petition’s filing. At a January 24, 2017 hearing, the parties testified that neither was present in Arizona for the entire 90 days immediately before Husband filed his petition. Based on this information, the superior court expressed concern that it may not have jurisdiction to hear the case. After receiving briefing and argument from the parties, the superior court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because “neither party was present in Arizona for 90 days prior to the filing of the Petition for Dissolution as required by A.R.S. § 25-312(1).” Wife timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(3).
Jennifer, thank you for being my attorney. I could not have been more pleased with the outcome of my family court hearing. Everything you have done for me throughout this case reflects in the final ruling of the judge. You helped me keep my head together and taught me a lot about myself as a person. I learned so much about my life from observing and listening to you. I will take all the advice you gave me to continue taking responsibility for my choices, continue to put the kids' needs first, and always stay truthful. Your diligence, dedication, and persistence in my case made what seemed impossible, possible. You are a wonderful person and an amazing attorney and I am stronger and more confident because of you.
I just want to again thank the Firm for working with me all that it has. I could not have done anything without everyone's assistance. You, Chris and Stacey have been and continue to provide me with compassion and hard work towards my case. Also a very special thanks to Kip for taking my case in the beginning. Also continued support from him and his dedication to providing me with his expertise in this matter.
After interviewing several law firms, I came across Jennifer Shick, and her firm, who I hired to represent me for my Family Court case. Jennifer has extensive knowledge of the law and is determined to bring the truth to every issue involved within the case. Throughout my case, Jennifer was prepared meticulously as well as went above and beyond all of my expectations. Even when the other party tried to differ from the truth, lie to the Judge, and turn situations around, Jennifer remained attentive and provided substantial evidence to show the judge the facts as well as the proof to support what was the best interests of my children. Additionally, Jennifer helped me endure many difficult experiences, situations and inspired me to remain positive throughout the entirety of my case. Her kindness, compassion, and professionalism helped me through very difficult times and made the process feel a thousand times lighter on my shoulders. She truly has my children and my best interest at heart and I trust her perspective as well as her honesty on each and every aspect of my case. She lessened the burden on my shoulders and even when I felt like the case was not going to go in my favor, Jennifer was open-minded and reassured me that the Judge would, in fact, see the truth, which he did and the case went in my favor. After nine months of court, everything finally came together. I cannot declare how much Jennifer has been an outstanding attorney. She addressed each and every issue with diligence, she cares about her clients and their families. Jennifer genuinely cares about her clients and her dedication to the details of the case was remarkable. Overall, I am extremely pleased with Jennifer’s services and I am truly thankful that I was so blessed to have her represent my children and me. I highly recommend Jennifer as one of the best attorneys in Arizona and if the situation ever arises, I will definitely have her represent my children and me again.
Dear Stacey and Kip, How can I ever thank you enough for helping me through the most difficult time in my life? I couldn't put into words my heartfelt gratefulness. You both were so compassionate and professional at every given moment throughout this process with me. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. You helped me to regain my freedom.
I was a client of Attorney Kevin Park for the dissolution of a divorce in 2016. And since I had never had the need to hire an attorney before for any purpose, I was somewhat apprehensive of the process. But the very calm and professional demeanor of Mr. Park eased my fears. He adeptly answered all my questions and I clearly knew the process and what to expect. And the skilled manner he communicated with opposing counsel was perfect. When it came down to negotiating with my spouse’s counsel, I knew I had selected the best attorney for my situation. What I noticed and appreciated was that he was using just the right amount of pressure with opposing counsel as was necessary. If you find yourself in this situation, you will want a seasoned professional like Mr. Park on your side. I'm very grateful that he was my attorney and not the opposition!
Chris is a smart and aggressive attorney for his clients. Chris always tries to reach a fair settlement of his cases. I’ve represented clients when Chris was the opposing counsel and while he is professional and amicable to work with, he does not back off on what he needs to do for his client
Kevin Park of Arizona Estate Planning Attorneys was just what I needed for my divorce. He was very approachable and personable. He was quick to recognize what I needed and provided it quickly and efficiently. I hope to never need a divorce lawyer again, but if I know anyone else who does, I will definitely recommend Kevin.
I feel that Tracey Van Wickler is certainly one of the best family lawyers around. She is logical, intelligent, and truly cares. Tracey always does what is in the clients best interest, does it well, timely and with integrity. She is good at keeping her clients informed as to what is going on and clear in her communication both written and verbally. I have recommended Tracey to other people and will continue to recommend her. I recommended Tracey to someone who was having issues with their ex-wife and his response was, “I know how good she is because I went up against her and she ate me for lunch”. This same person was so impressed with her, he even recommended her to someone else, WOW, that is impressive! I am exceptionally happy with her attention to detail, her ability to explain things in ways that are easy to understand, as well as her ability to keep everyone focused on the most important things. I would recommend Tracey to anyone who may be in need of her services.
I retained Hildebrand Law after interview a number of firms in the valley. Working with Michael C. was incredibly easy and informative. My case progressed in such a organized and thought out way to ensure that my needs were met. Michael was incredibly proactive and was able to see far ahead into my case to steer clear of some roadblocks. I would not hesitate to recommend Michael Clancy, and Hildebrand Law in general, to anyone.
I have worked with Hildebrand law for about 8 years. They are always ready to serve, provide guidance and give you a few options. When they provide you options they also take the time to walk you through the pros and cons of each and give you a recommendation of what is best, but will listen to you and support whatever course you choose after making and educated choice. I’d recommend them to my closest friends and feel Chris Hildebrand is now a friend to me.
Despite the unfortunate situation I found myself in, Chris Hildebrand @ Hildebrand Law helped me maneuver every step with professionalism, expertise, and even a sensitivity that was an added bonus.Chris and his staff helped me even when I didn't know I needed the help. In other words. . . they made sure we did not leave anything undone. And in the rare instance we needed the expertise of another professional, Chris knew exactly who to recommend.Chris also knew, because of his experience, what to anticipate down the road of litigation. That meant we were better prepared to meet the challenges head on, which lead to a more equitable and fair outcome. I appreciated that Chris did his best to meet my every need in a timely fashion, even if I had a simple question that required only a phone call or e-mail or if we needed to talk face-to-face.I highly recommend Chris Hildebrand @ Hildebrand Law, PC.
Review of Domicile vs Residency Requirement in an Arizona Divorce
We review de novo whether a superior court had subject matter jurisdiction. In re Marriage of Crawford, 180 Ariz. 324, 326 (1994). “‘[S]ubject matter jurisdiction’ refers to a court’s statutory or constitutional power to hear and determine a particular type of case.” State v. Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, 311 (2010). For the superior court to have subject matter jurisdiction over a petition for dissolution of marriage, it must find: That one of the parties, at the time the action was commenced, was domiciled in this state, or was stationed in this state while a member of the armed services, and that in either case the domicile or military presence has been maintained for ninety days prior to filing the petition for dissolution of marriage. A.R.S. § 25-312(1). Domicile requires “(1) physical presence, and (2) an intent to abandon the former domicile and remain here for an indefinite period of time.” Dewitt v. Mcfarland, 112 Ariz. 33, 34 (1975) (citation omitted).
Reidency Requirement for an Arizona Divorce.
However, continuous physical presence is not necessary to maintain domicile. In Clark v. Clark, 124 Ariz. 235, 236-37 (1979), a husband established his domicile in Arizona and, 93 days later, filed for dissolution of marriage. Id. During the 93 days, he left Arizona for several weeks to take care of an out-of-state felony charge. Id. Even though he had not been physically present in Arizona for 90 days at the time of filing, the court found subject matter jurisdiction existed because his trip out of state “was temporary in nature and did not indicate an intention on his part to change his domicile.” Id. Here, the superior court erred when it found no subject matter jurisdiction based solely upon the parties’ lack of physical presence in Arizona for 90 days. Establishing domicile and maintaining domicile are two distinct requirements within A.R.S. § 25-312(1).
Physical presence is required to establish domicile, but physical presence is not required to maintain domicile. Clark, 124 Ariz. at 237. Once established, a domicile is maintained until abandoned for a new domicile. Lake v. Bonham, 148 Ariz. 599, 601 (App. 1986). Thus, a court must first determine if a party is domiciled in Arizona and then determine if that domicile had been maintained for at least 90 days by the time of filing. A.R.S. § 25-312(1). The parties do not dispute that Wife resided in Laos from 2014 until July 2016. “Domicile is presumed to follow residence, … but is rebuttable and the burden of proof to rebut this presumption is on the person contending to the contrary.” Jizmejian v. Jizmejian, 16 Ariz. App. 270, 273 (1972).
Hildebrand Law, PC | Voted Best of Our Valley in Arizona Foothills Magazine.
Wife argues that she was domiciled in Arizona since 2009 because she did not have the intent to remain in Laos permanently once Husband’s employment ended. She also argues that she was domiciled in Arizona before moving to Laos, and maintained that Arizona domicile because her stay in Laos, was temporary and based on Husband’s government employment. Neither of these factors is determinative, and the superior court may consider them in determining, first, whether Wife established domicile in Arizona before 2014 and, second, whether she intended to abandon or maintain that domicile between 2014 and July 2016. Dewitt, 112 Ariz. at 34.1. The superior court heard evidence about where the parties resided but did not determine whether either party was domiciled in Arizona and if so when that domicile was established. Because the superior court has not determined the parties’ domicile, we remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
We vacate the superior court’s order dismissing the petition for dissolution of marriage because jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 25- 312(1) does not require 90 days of physical presence before the petition is filed. We remand to the superior court to determine if either party was domiciled in Arizona and, if so, whether that domicile was maintained for 90 days before the petition was filed. In our discretion, we deny the parties’ requests for an award of attorneys’ fees on appeal.
Call (480)305-8300 to schedule a personalized consultation with one of our experienced Phoenix and Scottsdale Arizona divorce and family law attorneys to discuss your divorce or family law case.