Source: https://www.altickcorwin.com/News/Around-The-World-Jurisdiction-And-Service.shtml
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 16:25:48+00:00

Document:
"In her decision of November 15, 2002, the magistrate stated, "Wife was served by certified international mail on September 17, 2002 [in Germany]. The parties have not lived in a marital relationship in the state of Ohio and this court has no personal jurisdiction over wife." The magistrate's decision set forth the duration of the marriage, distributed real and personal property, and addressed the issues of spousal support and Russell Collins's military pension. The trial court adopted the magistrate's decision on January 17, 2003. A decree of divorce was entered February 4, 2003. The decree stated that Russell Collins was an Ohio resident and that "service of process [on Brigitte Collins] was made according to law or waived."
The first step that the Magistrate should have taken is to determine whether there is subject-matter jurisdiction; i.e., was the Plaintiff domiciled in Ohio; or stated otherwise: did the court have jurisdiction over the res (the thing), which is the marriage?
R.C. §3105.03 provides that "the plaintiff in actions for divorce and annulment shall have been a resident of the state at least six months immediately before filing the complaint."
The Second District Court of Appeals did a thoughtful analysis of R.C. §3105.03's jurisdictional prerequisites in Hager v. Hager (1992), 79 Ohio App. 3d 239. In that case, Plaintiff Joseph Hager filed his Complaint for Divorce, and Defendant Marjean Hager moved to dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction. Mrs. Hager alleged that Mr. Hager did not meet the jurisdictional prerequisites set forth in R.C. §3105.03 because, until the month prior to the filing of his divorce action, he (1) maintained Florida as his state of residence for military purposes; (2) maintained a Florida drivers license; and (3) voted in Florida.
The trial court ruled that Mr. Hager met the jurisdictional requirements to convey subjection matter jurisdiction to the Court, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that decision.
The appellate court explained that the word "residence", as set forth in R.C. §3105.03, means "domiciliary residence", which has two components: (1) an actual residence in the jurisdiction, and (2) an intention to make the state of jurisdiction a permanent home. Citing Coleman v. Coleman(1972), 32 Ohio St. 2d 155 at 162 and Spires v Spires (1966), 7 Ohio Misc. 197. Further, the Plaintiff in an original action has the burden to show he is actually domiciled in this state. Citing Redrow v. Redrow (1952), 94 Ohio App. 38.
In support of his assertion that he was domiciled in Ohio, Mr. Hager testified that he had acquired a residence in Beavercreek, Ohio; he was engaged to be married; and he had already explored civilian job opportunities in the area, as he expected to be retiring from the military shortly after his divorce. The trial court concluded, and the appellate court agreed, that Mr. Hager established the two components necessary to show that the Greene County Domestic Relations Court had jurisdiction: he physically resided in Ohio and was domiciled here.
In Coleman v. Coleman (1972), 32 Ohio St. 2d 155, the Ohio Supreme Court noted that a person's intention to make a place his permanent home is largely a subjective determination, because the intention is typically known only by the individual. However, in Winnard v. Winnard (1939), 62 Ohio App 351, the Tenth District Court of Appeals explained that "the matter of residence is so essentially one of intent that one is permitted to determine where his residence is and it will be so accepted unless the facts and circumstances are so persuasive as that his avowed purpose cannot be accepted as true." Id at 354.
* Note that the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) protects military pay from being taxed by any state other than the military member's state of domicile.
(B) For purposes of this section, a person who enters into an agreement, as a principal, with a sales representative for the solicitation of orders in this state is transacting business in this state. As used in this division, "principal" and "sales representative" have the same meanings as in section 1335.11 of the Revised Code.
(C) When jurisdiction over a person is based solely upon this section, only a cause of action arising from acts enumerated in this section may be asserted against him.
The second step in our analysis is to determine whether there the defendant had "minimum contacts" with the State of Ohio such that the court could exercise in personam jurisdiction over the defendant.
Ohio's long-arm statute, R.C. 2307.382, and the applicable Rule of Civil Procedure, Civ.R. 4.3(A), need to be examined to determine whether they confer personal jurisdiction over the Defendant. and, if so, (2) whether granting jurisdiction under the statute and rule would deprive the nonresident defendant of the right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." State ex rel. Toma v. Corrigan (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 589, 592.
"Personal jurisdiction over a defendant is premised on that person's minimum contacts with the forum state "such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' " International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945), 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S. Ct. 154, 158, 90 L. Ed. 95, quoting Milliken v. Meyer (1940), 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S. Ct. 339, 343, 85 L. Ed. 278. " 'The unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State.... It is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposely avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State....' " Kulko v. California Superior Court (1978), 436 U.S. 84, 93-94, 98 S. Ct. 1690, 1698, 56 L. Ed. 2d 132, quoting Hanson v. Denckla (1958), 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S. Ct. 1228, 1240, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1283.
"Living in the marital relationship within this state notwithstanding subsequent departure from this state, as to all obligations arising for spousal support, custody, child support, or property settlement, if the other party to the marital relationship continues to reside in this state[.]"
In 1991 or 1992, plaintiff and the minor children moved to Ohio, where defendant purchased a home in Mansfield for plaintiff and the children to live in and sent them money for living expenses. As they had in other places they lived, plaintiff and defendant joined a parish in Mansfield and attended some dinners, events and services together. Plaintiff testified defendant "visited" plaintiff and the children in Ohio during "vacations," usually twice a year for about a month each time, but he always returned to Kuwait where he worked and maintained a separate residence until plaintiff filed her complaint for legal separation. According to plaintiff, during visits to Ohio, defendant attended his son's baseball games, bought suits in Cincinnati, visited a doctor in Cleveland and a dentist in Columbus, and had intimate relations with plaintiff until she filed for legal separation in 1995. Plaintiff and defendant filed separate tax returns, with plaintiff filing as "single" and defendant filing as "head of household." Defendant received some mail at the Mansfield residence, but it was primarily "junk" mail.
Based upon the evidence, personal jurisdiction of defendant under Civ.R. 4.3(A)(8) has not been established. As the trial court properly concluded, while "defendant has been to Ohio only for visits since plaintiff's move here in 1992, he has not established residence in Ohio nor has he 'lived in the marital relationship' in Ohio sufficient to establish 'minimum contacts' necessary to establish jurisdiction over the person of defendant."
The court was correct in finding that there was no jurisdiction over the person of Brigitte Collins because the minimum contacts standard of Ohio Long Arm Statute, R.C. 2307.382 and Civ. R. 4.3(8) were not met.
Proceed with personal jurisdiction on the basis of R.C. 2307.382(8) at your own risk.
"A review of Ohio law shows that few cases have determined long-arm jurisdiction based solely on ownership of real property in the forum state. One Ohio legal authority states that Civ. R. 4.3(A)(6) "is indefinite in its long-arm reach in light of the fact that there have been very few cases in any state which interpret its meaning. In short, subsection (6) is a 'sleeper.'" 4-150 Ohio Civil Practice (2005), Section 150.38.
"The Tenth District Court of Appeals of Ohio held that the trial court did not have personal jurisdiction over a party, despite his owning real estate in Ohio, in an action for legal separation where the spouse sought an equitable division of the couple's assets, including the Ohio property. Kvinta v. Kvinta (Feb. 20, 2000), Franklin App. No. 99AP-508. "Although appellee has sought a division of property, the action is not one arising from appellant's interest in, possession, or use of the real property in Mansfield, Ohio." Id. See, also, Leonesio v. Carter (May 11, 1992), Butler App. No. CA91-08-136 (holding that the "mere presence of property in a state does not establish a sufficient relationship between the owner of the property and the state to support the exercise of jurisdiction over an unrelated cause of action.")"
The third step is to determine how to serve the defendant.
Some divorce practitioners look no further than the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, pick the method of service which seems most appropriate to the circumstances and proceed to "serve" the other party. This is not only poor practice; it may be malpractice, because if the method of service does not comport with the target country's applicable laws, the divorce decree may well be voidable or void ab initio.
(A) Service by certified or express mail.
Evidenced by return receipt signed by any person, service of any process shall be by certified or express mail unless otherwise permitted by these rules. The clerk shall place a copy of the process and complaint or other document to be served in an envelope. The clerk shall address the envelope to the person to be served at the address set forth in the caption or at the address set forth in written instructions furnished to the clerk with instructions to forward. The clerk shall affix adequate postage and place the sealed envelope in the United States mail as certified or express mail return receipt requested with instructions to the delivering postal employee to show to whom delivered, date of delivery, and address where delivered.
The clerk shall forthwith enter the fact of mailing on the appearance docket and make a similar entry when the return receipt is received. If the envelope is returned with an endorsement showing failure of delivery, the clerk shall forthwith notify, by mail, the attorney of record or, if there is no attorney of record, the party at whose instance process was issued and enter the fact of notification on the appearance docket. The clerk shall file the return receipt or returned envelope in the records of the action.
When the plaintiff files a written request with the clerk for personal service, service of process shall be made by that method.
When process issued from the Supreme Court, a court of appeals, a court of common pleas, or a county court is to be served personally, the clerk of the court shall deliver the process and sufficient copies of the process and complaint, or other document to be served, to the sheriff of the county in which the party to be served resides or may be found. When process issues from the municipal court, delivery shall be to the bailiff of the court for service on all defendants who reside or may be found within the county or counties in which that court has territorial jurisdiction and to the sheriff of any other county in this state for service upon a defendant who resides in or may be found in that other county. In the alternative, process issuing from any of these courts may be delivered by the clerk to any person not less than eighteen years of age, who is not a party and who has been designated by order of the court to make service of process. The person serving process shall locate the person to be served and shall tender a copy of the process and accompanying documents to the person to be served. When the copy of the process has been served, the person serving process shall endorse that fact on the process and return it to the clerk, who shall make the appropriate entry on the appearance docket.
When the person serving process is unable to serve a copy of the process within twenty-eight days, the person shall endorse that fact and the reasons therefore on the process and return the process and copies to the clerk who shall make the appropriate entry on the appearance docket. In the event of failure of service, the clerk shall follow the notification procedure set forth in division (A) of this rule. Failure to make service within the twenty-eight day period and failure to make proof of service do not affect the validity of the service.
When the plaintiff files a written request with the clerk for residence service, service of process shall be made by that method.
Residence service shall be effected by leaving a copy of the process and the complaint, or other document to be served, at the usual place of residence of the person to be served with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein. The clerk of the court shall issue the process, and the process server shall return it, in the same manner as prescribed in division (B) of this rule. When the person serving process is unable to serve a copy of the process within twenty-eight days, the person shall endorse that fact and the reasons therefore on the process, and return the process and copies to the clerk, who shall make the appropriate entry on the appearance docket. In the event of failure of service, the clerk shall follow the notification procedure set forth in division (A) of this rule. Failure to make service within the twenty-eight-day period and failure to make proof of service do not affect the validity of service.
(N) Upon any governmental entity not mentioned above by serving the person, officer, group or body responsible for the administration of that entity or by serving the appropriate legal officer, if any, representing the entity. Service upon any person who is a member of the "group" or "body" responsible for the administration of the entity shall be sufficient.
Civ R 4.3 Process: out-of-state service A) When service permitted.
(1) Service by certified or express mail.
When ordered by the court, a "person" as defined in division (A) of this rule may be personally served with a copy of the process and complaint or other document to be served. Service under this division may be made by any person not less than eighteen years of age who is not a party and who has been designated by order of the court. On request, the clerk shall deliver the summons to the plaintiff for transmission to the person who will make the service.
(6) As directed by order of the court.
Service under division (A)(3) or (A)(6) of this rule may be made by any person not less than eighteen years of age who is not a party and who has been designated by order of the court, or by the foreign court. On request the clerk shall deliver the summons to the plaintiff for transmission to the person or the foreign court or officer who will make the service.
Proof of service may be made as prescribed by Civ. R. 4.1(B), or by the law of the foreign country, or by order of the court. When mail service is made pursuant to division (A)(5) of this rule, proof of service shall include a receipt signed by the addressee or other evidence of delivery to the addressee satisfactory to the court.
Some divorce practitioners assume that because the other party is a US citizen abroad or an American service member living on a US military base overseas that the law of the country do not apply. This is wrong as well.
If one of the prospective parties resides in Ohio and the other is overseas, you must observe the rules for service both of Ohio and of the other country.
Where should you look to determine another country's law governing service of process?
Is the party being served in a country which is a signatory to either the Hague Convention on Service Abroad or the Inter-American Convention?
If yes, has the country made any objections or reservations?
If no, look to the local law of the land and consult with a local practitioner.
Does the country specifically authorize the kind of service being contemplated?
the law and civil rules of procedure of the United States and/or of the state in which the action is filed.
A treaty occupies coequal authority with the United States Constitution, and as such, is entitled to recognition as the "supreme law of the land". See Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 433, 40 S.Ct. 382, 383, 64 L.Ed. 641, 647 (1920), and Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution.
Consequently, the Hague Convention on Service Abroad and the Inter-American Convention on Letter Rogatory take precedence over any conflicting federal or state laws, including the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Hague Convention: is a multilateral treaty which codifies service of process by international registered mail and by agent. The treaty also provides for service of process by a Central Authority (usually the Ministry of Justice) in the Convention countries. The text of the treaty is self-explanatory; however, you must be careful to check the reservations and declarations each country made on accession to the treaty. Some countries have made specific reservations against particular methods of service (for example, service by process server or international registered mail). The Convention method should be employed in all countries party to it. Each signatory designates a Central Authority for receipt of Hague Service Convention requests, however, the Hague Convention specifically allows a signatory nation to consent to methods of service other than through its Central Authority.
Three liberal methods of service are permitted under the Hague Convention. First, service may go through the central authority of the receiving country. (Article 5) Second, service may go through diplomatic or consular agents that the receiving country considers "non-objectionable (Article 8-11); and third, service may be done by any method permitted by the internal law of the receiving country (Article 19).
Article 19 of the Hague Convention provides: "To the extent that the internal law of a contracting state to the Convention allows methods of transmission, other than those provided for in the Articles, of documents coming from abroad, for service within its territory, the Convention shall not affect such provisions."
Under the terms of the Hague Convention, registered mail service, which may meet the requirements of the Ohio Civil Rules of Procedure, is insufficient service of process on citizens of nations that are signatories. See id.; Lyman Steel Corp. v. Ferrostaal Metals Corp. (N.D. Ohio 1990), 747 F.Supp. 389; Okubo v. Shimizu , 2nd Dist. No. 2001 CA 134, 2002-Ohio-2624. Germany, a signatory to the Hague Convention, has expressed a specific objection to service by international mail and has asserted that the Hague Convention is the exclusive method for international service of process in Germany. See Lyman Steel Corp. v. Ferrostaal Metals Corp. , supra.
The attorney representing the party seeking service should execute the portion of Form USM-94 marked "Identity and Address of the Applicant" and the "Name and Address of the Requesting Authority" portion of the Summary of the Document to be Served.
The Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory: The United States has a treaty relationship with countries which are a party to the Convention and the Additional Protocol. The treaty provides a mechanism for service of documents by a foreign central authority. Requests are prepared on a Convention form and transmitted via the U.S. Central Authority.
Letters Rogatory: If the destination country is one in which no Consular Convention or specific treaty obligation is in force with the United States, a letter rogatory may be issued. A letter rogatory is a formal request, based on comity, from a court in one country to "the appropriate judicial authorities" in another country requesting service of process, filing of a subpoena, or production of documents or testimony. Only about 20% of nations have service of process treaties. Formalities may include specified format, translations, and diplomatic authentications such as acknowledgments and embassy seals.
It is clear from the record, and undisputed by Russell Collins, that Brigitte Collins was never properly served with the complaint for divorce pursuant to the terms of the Hague Convention. Therefore, the court had no personal jurisdiction over Brigitte Collins.
The fourth step is to consider whether the defendant has entered a voluntary appearance and submitted to the court's jurisdiction either expressly or by waiver. But such appearance and waiver would still need to be in accord with the law of the other country.
It is clear that Brigitte Collins did not enter a voluntary appearance or otherwise submit to the court's jurisdiction.
"A court obtains personal jurisdiction over a defendant by (1) service of process, (2) the voluntary appearance and submission of the defendant to the court's jurisdiction, or (3) other acts the defendant commits which constitute a waiver of a jurisdictional defense. Maryhew v. Yova (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 154, 156, 11 Ohio B. 471, 464 N.E.2d 538. Pursuant to Civ.R. 12(H), a defendant waives the affirmative defenses of lack of jurisdiction over the person or insufficiency of service of process unless the defenses are presented (1) by motion before pleading pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B), (2) affirmatively in a responsive pleading under Civ.R. 8(C), or (3) within an amended pleading under Civ.R. 15. State ex rel. The Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Cleveland (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 31, 33, 1996 Ohio 379, 661 N.E.2d 187. The failure to utilize the prescribed methods results in a waiver of the affirmative defenses. Mills v. Whitehouse Trucking Co. (1974), 40 Ohio St.2d 55, 60, 320 N.E.2d 668."
Note that in Kvinta II, the filing of a notice of special appearance, coupled with a motion to quash a subpoena and a motion to quash a request for production of documents constituted a waiver of 12(B) jurisdictional defenses of lack of jurisdiction and insufficiency of process and the party was deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.
"For a court to acquire personal jurisdiction, there must be a proper service of summons or an entry of appearance, and a judgment entered without proper service or an entry of appearance is null and void. See State ex rel. Ballard v. O'Donnell (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 182, 553 N.E.2d 650. "A trial court is without jurisdiction to render judgment or to make findings against a person who was not served summons, did not appear, and was not a party in the court proceedings. A person against whom such judgment and findings are made is entitled to have the judgment vacated." See id. at paragraph one of the syllabus.
The Hague Convention is a multilateral treaty "intended to provide a simpler way to serve process abroad, to assure that defendants sued in foreign jurisdictions will receive actual and timely notice of suit, and to facilitate proof of service abroad." See Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk (1988), 486 U.S. 694, 108 S.Ct. 2104, 100 L. Ed. 2d 722. "The Hague Convention requires each state to establish a central authority to receive requests for service of documents from other countries." See id. The Hague Convention preempts inconsistent methods of service of process prescribed by state law by virtue of the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution. See id. The Hague Convention, a ratified treaty, is "the supreme law of the land." See Meek v. Nova Steel Processing, Inc. (1997), 124 Ohio App.3d 367, 706 N.E.2d 374.
Under the terms of the Hague Convention, registered mail service is insufficient service of process on citizens of nations that are signatories. See id.; Lyman Steel Corp. v. Ferrostaal Metals Corp. (N.D. Ohio 1990), 747 F.Supp. 389; Okubo v. Shimizu, 2nd Dist. No. 2002 Ohio 2624. Germany, a signatory to the Hague Convention, has expressed a specific objection to service by international mail and has asserted that the Hague Convention is the exclusive method for international service of process in Germany. See Lyman Steel Corp. v. Ferrostaal Metals Corp., supra.
It is clear from the record, and undisputed by Russell Collins, that Brigitte Collins was never properly served with the complaint for divorce pursuant to the terms of the Hague Convention. Therefore, the court had no personal jurisdiction over Brigitte Collins."
! If subject-matter and long-arm jurisdiction are established, but personal service is not, one may, after proper service and issuance of notice, seek the appropriate in rem orders. These may then be enforced against the other party should he or she be personally served or against any real property or other assets belonging to the other party in Ohio.
A decree of divorce is regarded as a judgment in rem because it determines the marital status of the parties. See Hager v. Hager (1992), 79 Ohio App.3d 239, 607 N.E.2d 63, citing McGill v. Deming (1887), 44 Ohio St. 645, 11 N.E. 118. The marital status, or res, follows the domiciles of the parties to the marriage. See id. In order for the court to have jurisdiction over the res, or marriage, one of the parties must be domiciled within the state granting the divorce. See id., citing Williams v. North Carolina (1942), 317 U.S. 287, 63 S.Ct. 207. Russell Collins was domiciled in Ohio. Therefore, the trial court had the authority to enter a decree terminating the Collinses' marriage.
In order to determine financial issues, the trial court must have personal jurisdiction based upon notice to and proper service on the defendant. See Kvinta v. Kvinta (June 5, 2003), 10th Dist. No. 02AP-836, 2003-Ohio-2884; Depaulitte v. Depaulitte (2000), 138 Ohio App.3d 780, 742 N.E.2d 659; Stanek v. Stanek (Sept. 26, 1994), 12th Dist. No. CA94-03-080; Hager v. Hager , supra. In a divorce proceeding, the trial court must have personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in order to determine issues of spousal support and property division. See id. The trial court had no jurisdiction over Brigitte Collins in this case. Therefore, the court had no authority to distribute property to which she arguably had a claim, to issue orders regarding spousal support, or to issue orders regarding the parties' pensions.
The trial court erred in granting Brigitte Collins's Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment as to the granting of the divorce. The trial court did not err in granting the Civ.R. 60(B) motion as to support, property division, and all other financial matters. The first and second assignments of error are sustained solely to the extent that they challenge the trial court's granting of the Civ.R. 60(B) motion in regard to the granting of the divorce, and they are overruled in all other respects.
The third assignment of error, alleging that the trial court erred in taking "judicial notice" of the provisions of the Hague Convention, is overruled because the trial court is required to follow the applicable law.
But see Ward v Ludwig, 149 Ohio App.3d 687, 778 N.E.2d 650 (2002) where husband, in Ohio, sued his wife, a German citizen who had returned to Germany, the Fourth District Court of Appeals held that husband's failure to follow Article 5 of the Hague Service Convention rendered the resultant judgment void. Germany had chosen to reject Article 10 and follow Article 5 by establishing a central authority to receive service of documents; and requiring the papers served by the central authority to be written in or translated into German. Service by registered mail in compliance with Civil Rule 4.5 rendered the divorce judgment void, irrespective of fact that wife received actual notice, understood the English language, and had a German lawyer file an answer.
China does not recognize U.S. judgments and they will not honor requests for discovery assistance. The only purpose in most cases to serve in China via the Hague is because you want to enforce judgment against the other party in the United States or in a county other than China. Service is required to enforce judgment but service does not guarantee enforcement in the foreign country unless there is a reciprocity agreement or a judgment treaty. There is no such treaty with China. Such a treaty is being worked on at the Hague but it is not yet completed nor ratified by any country.
According to Marion J. Browning-Baker, author of "No Service, No Divorce Case", Family Advocate, Fall 2005, "Currently, one may serve anyone in Iraq or Afghanistan via the U.S. Postal Service, the Hague Service Convention does not apply."
The general position of the military departments is that the service of civil process on military personnel stationed abroad (or at sea) is not a proper military function. Thus, governing military regulations expressly prohibit commanders from serving civil process upon their personnel unless the individual agrees to accept the process voluntarily. Generally, commanders or other officials in charge when contacted about service of process on an employee will bring the matter to the attention of the individual and will determine whether he or she wishes to accept service voluntarily.
Installation commanders may impose reasonable restrictions upon persons who enter their installations to serve process. It may therefore be necessary for the foreign Central Authority to effect service on the individual outside the installation. Some foreign Central Authorities may decline jurisdiction over cases involving U.S. military personnel depending on the SOFA agreement applicable (if any).
A request for service on U.S. military personnel pursuant to a letter rogatory may prove difficult as the foreign court may decline jurisdiction. It may be necessary to retain the services of a private attorney or other agent to effect service on the individual outside the U.S. military installation. Service by registered mail is also another option.
You may wish to consult the Judge Advocate General's office for the appropriate branch of the U.S. military at the Pentagon for further guidance.
If you wish to split the military pension, never take a default judgment against the service member. Under the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act (USFSPA), the court must have personal jurisdiction over the service member. Remember the mere fact that Captain Collins is stationed at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base is insufficient to establish Ohio as his or her domicile.

References: §3105
 §3105
 v. 
 §3105
 §3105
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.