The party seeking to establish a change in domicile bears the burden of proving that change. So long as a reasonable doubt remains, the presumption is that the domicile has not been changed. Here there is quite clearly a reasonable doubt as to decedent's intent to abandon his Jefferson Parish domicile and adopt a St. Tammany Parish domicile. We therefore agree with the trial court that decedent, John E. Lauricella, Jr., was domiciled in Jefferson Parish at the time of his death and find that the opposition to the succession proceeding was properly dismissed. The district court judgment is affirmed.
Costs are to be borne by the succession.
United States District Court, D. Connecticut. Jan. 30, 1991. Background Plaintiffs, F. Sutherland and Elva Macklem, bring this action pro se against the United States claiming that they are owed a refund of taxes paid for the 1983 tax year. The United States has moved for partial summary judgment asserting that there are no genuine issues of material fact as to plaintiffs' claims regarding the charitable contribution and the rental expenses. In response, plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to the government's motion and moved for summary judgment on the same two issues.