Opinion ID: 1162576
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The test for jurisdiction

Text: Until 1975, Alaska had a statutory one-year residence requirement for divorce: No person may commence an action for divorce until he has been a resident of the state for at least one year before the commencement of the action. Ch. 101, § 12.07, SLA 1962 (former AS 09.55.140) We held the one-year residence requirement unconstitutional in State v. Adams, 522 P.2d 1125, 1132 (Alaska 1974). The legislature responded by repealing AS 09.55.140. Ch. 208, § 5, SLA 1975. Since then, neither the divorce statutes [1] nor the jurisdictional statutes [2] contain any explicit residency requirement for a divorce uncomplicated by alimony, property division, or child custody. [3] However, there are requirements at common law. [4] We have never determined the minimum contacts required in Alaska for divorce jurisdiction. However, in Adams, we recognized that the Supreme Court found domicile to be an adequate basis for jurisdiction under the United States Constitution. [5] 522 P.2d at 1131. Elaborating on the domicile test, we stated: Domicile is established by an actual physical presence in the state coupled with a coincident intent to make the state one's permanent place of abode. Id. Our result in Adams is in accordance with the Restatement, which states: A state has power to exercise judicial jurisdiction to dissolve the marriage of spouses one of whom is domiciled in the state. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 71 (1971). To acquire a domicile of choice in a place, a person must be physically present there, id. at § 16, and must intend to make that place his home for the time at least. Id. at § 18. The question remains whether the legislature added additional prerequisites to the courts' divorce jurisdiction when it enacted AS 01.10.055 in 1983. See Ch. 67, § 1, SLA 1983. Alaska Statute 01.10.055 states in part: Residency. (a) A person establishes residency in the state by being physically present in the state with the intent to remain in the state indefinitely and to make a home in the state. (b) A person demonstrates the intent required under (a) of this section (1) by maintaining a principal place of abode in the state for at least 30 days or for a longer period if a longer period is required by law or regulation; and (2) by providing other proof of intent as may be required by law or regulation, that may include proof that the person is not claiming residency outside the state or obtaining benefits under a claim of residency outside the state. This statute is codified under the heading Article 2. General Rules of Statutory Construction, which is contained in Chapter 10. Laws and Statutes. The parties raise two conflicting interpretations of this statute: Ruth argues that the only function of AS 01.10.055 is to define residency as the term is used in other statutes. Under this view, AS 01.10.055 is irrelevant in this case, since no other statute requires a person to be a resident in order to file a divorce action. Tom, on the other hand, argues that AS 01.10.055 has general applicability. In particular, he argues it modifies the requirement set forth in Adams. Both interpretations of AS 01.10.055 are plausible, and neither is beyond attack. We believe the better view is that the legislature, by enacting AS 01.10.055, intended to define residency only as the term is used in other statutes. If it intended AS 01.10.055 to apply for all purposes, including the determination of jurisdiction over a divorce action, it would not have put the definition under General Rules of Statutory Construction. We are influenced by AS 01.10.020, also under Article 2, General Rules of Statutory Construction, which states: Applicability of AS 01.10.040-01.10.090. The provisions of AS 01.10.040-01.10.090 shall be observed in the construction of the laws of the state unless the construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the legislature. (Emphasis added.) In this context, laws refers to statutes and regulations and not the common law. Furthermore, in normal usage, the word construction applies to statutes, not common law. Thus, the definition of residency in AS 01.10.055 is irrelevant in this case, since there is no separate statute requiring that plaintiffs in divorce actions be residents. Alaska Statute 01.10.055 does not affect the common law rule that Alaska courts have jurisdiction over a divorce action when one of the parties is domiciled in Alaska, where domicile is defined as physical presence plus an intent to remain permanently. [6] Adams, 522 P.2d at 1131-32. In the absence of a statute so requiring, we see no reason to impose additional prerequisites to jurisdiction of the Alaska courts. Tom Perito argues that additional restrictions would promote the sound public policy of discouraging divorce. However, imposing a durational residence requirement would not discourage divorce among longer-term residents. Furthermore, imposing a jurisdictional bar for the sole purpose of discouraging divorce among recent migrants is a policy determination best left to the legislature. Finally, we must interpret the word permanently as used in the Adams test for domicile. The superior court concluded that the intent to remain permanently should be interpreted to mean the intent to remain indefinitely. Otherwise, it is likely that a large percentage of Alaskans would not be considered residents, since many intend to retire elsewhere. We agree.