Opinion ID: 4558858
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: There can be only one residence.

Text: 3. A residence cannot be lost until another is gained. .... 7. The residence can be changed only by the union of act and intent. [¶12] “A legal residence is the place where an individual has established his home, where he is habitually present, and which he intends to return to when he is away for business or pleasure.” Dietz v. City of Medora, 333 N.W.2d 702, 705 (N.D. 1983). “Every person has only one legal residence, as distinguished from the possibility of several actual physical residences.” Id. All of the facts and circumstances in an individual’s life may be used when considering the factual issue of whether or not there has been a change of legal residence. Id. Legal residence, determined under the rules in N.D.C.C. § 54-01-26, is a question of fact to be determined by the factfinder. Dietz, at 705. [¶13] If an issue of fact is presented in an original proceeding in this Court, N.D.C.C. § 27-02-17 provides: If an issue of fact is joined, or an assessment of damages by a jury is necessary, in any action or proceeding commenced in the supreme court, the court, in its discretion, may send the same to some district court, and it there must be determined in the same manner as other issues of fact are tried or other assessments are made, and a return thereof must be made as directed by the supreme court. In such cases, the supreme court may order a special verdict to be found and returned. Because Martin’s residence is a question of fact, we asked the district court for factual findings relating to Martin’s residence for the five years preceding the general election. In finding that Martin did not become a North Dakota resident until after November 2016, the district court stated in part: In considering the testimony from Martin, the Court is also left with evidence and testimony that her actions and intentions 4 regarding her residency often conflicted at various times during the relevant timeframe. However, the Court does specifically find that Martin was a credible witness. She appeared truthful and candid, and nothing in her testimony suggested any ill will or intent both in her current testimony or in her actions throughout the timeframe relevant to this matter. .... Given all the evidence and testimony, this Court specifically finds that Martin was not a North Dakota resident at the time she cast her vote in the November 2016 election. While Martin had, in part, acted as though she was a North Dakota resident by physically moving to North Dakota, and while she likely had begun the intention of changing domiciles, she had not fully abandoned her former Nevada domicile, and she did not yet have a bona fide intention to change and remain in North Dakota permanently. This finding is based on numerous factors, some of which are more persuasive than others, but none of which are conclusive. Taken together, the facts indicate that Martin did not have union of act and intent to change her residence at least through November 8, 2016. Prior to casting her 2016 vote in Nevada, the Court recognizes that Martin had physically moved to North Dakota and she began renting out her Nevada home. However, the rental agreement for Martin’s Nevada home indicated a month-to-month term, leaving Martin free at any time to provide “30-day’s notice” to her tenant to move out. See Respondent’s Exhibit 2; Appellate Appendix at p. 22. The rental agreement also stated it was intended “to promote household harmony by clarifying the responsibilities and expectations of the Owner and Tenant while sharing the home.” (emphasis added). This language itself suggests that Martin, in executing the document, intended to remain as part of the “household” and to “share” the home. This is further evidenced by the fact that Martin kept her personal vehicle at the home. Prior to casting her 2016 vote in Nevada, Martin also had not changed any of her addresses on any of her government-issued identification cards. Her driver’s license still reflected her Nevada 5 address, as did her passport. She did not work in North Dakota prior to voting in 2016, mainly due to her injury. She did not obtain her professional license in North Dakota until December 2016, although she had started the process before that time. She did not own a home in North Dakota, but lived with her partner in his home in Mandan. She continued her medical care with her medical providers in Nevada through 2016. And the Court certainly cannot ignore the fact that Martin voted in Las Vegas, Nevada on November 8, 2016. In doing so, she specifically chose not to avail herself of the rights of citizenship in North Dakota, but instead to avail herself of the rights of citizenship in Nevada. She did this in-person by physically appearing at the polling location in Nevada. She identified herself with her passport, which contained her Nevada address. In doing so, Martin consciously availed herself of that Nevada address in order to cast her vote. Her intent was clearly to cast a legal vote. And in doing so, she did not intend to exercise any rights of citizenship in North Dakota, but intended to exercise them in Nevada. “When you intend the facts to which the law attaches a consequence, you must abide the consequence whether you intend it or not.” Moodie, 258 N.W. 558 at 566 (quoting Dickinson v. Brookline, 181 Mass. at 196). Martin intended to cast a legal vote in Nevada, and she was a registered voter in Nevada with a valid Nevada address at the time she cast her vote. By showing her passport as valid identification and proof of residency, Martin indicated that her Nevada address was intended by her to be her legal residence for the purpose of voting and enjoying all the civil rights and privileges that come therewith. At the hearing in this matter, counsel for Martin continuously argued that voting and registering in a particular place is not conclusive proof of residence. This Court agrees, and that is what the law states. However, by voting in Nevada and availing herself of the rights of citizenship in Nevada, Martin removed any doubt this Court may have had regarding her intended residency in 2016. 6 Other than physically living in North Dakota, most of Martin’s other actions suggested an intention to retain her legal residence in Nevada, including maintaining her home, driver’s license, passport, and vehicle registration all in Nevada. She continued to receive medical care in Nevada, traveled there often, and kept her personal vehicle there. “[N]otwithstanding one may testify that his intention was to make his home in a certain place, if his acts are of a character to negative his declaration or inconsistent with it, it is clear that the court cannot be governed by his testimony as to intention.” Moodie, 258 N.W. 558 at 563. This Court finds that although Martin testified that she intended North Dakota to be her residence in 2015-16, the vast majority of her actions in that timeframe are inconsistent with such an intention. To the extent the Court had any doubts that Martin had not yet formed act and intent to change her domicile to North Dakota after hearing the testimony regarding her actions up until November 8, 2016, this doubt was removed by the testimony regarding Martin’s decision to cast her vote in Nevada and to avail herself of the rights of citizenship there. “The fact of voting is not conclusive, but it is a strong circumstance which indicates the intention of the voter to cast a legal vote.” Id. at 564. This Court has no doubt that Martin fully formed the intent to make North Dakota her legal residence at some point after 2016. After that time, she began working exclusively in North Dakota, she bought a home with her partner in North Dakota, and she sold her home in Nevada. She has also since changed all of her government-issued identification documents to reflect her North Dakota address, including her passport. However, all of the evidence and testimony presented to this Court regarding Martin’s intent and her actions, both prior-to and up until her vote in 2016, suggest she had not fully abandoned her Nevada domicile and residency, and she continued to avail herself of the rights of being a citizen of Nevada. She availed herself of these rights specifically to the exclusion of exercising many of those rights in North Dakota, including the right to vote. 7 Because there has not been a showing that during the necessary timeframe Martin had a union of both act and intent to change her residence from Las Vegas, Nevada, and establish it in North Dakota, the Court finds Martin was not a North Dakota resident until sometime after November 2016. Therefore, this Court specifically finds that Martin will not have been a North Dakota resident for the five years preceding the 2020 general election. [¶14] When exercising our appellate jurisdiction, we review a district court’s factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard of review. Rustad v. Baumgartner, 2020 ND 126, ¶ 8, 943 N.W.2d 786. This case is not an appeal but one where we exercised our original jurisdiction and sent the factual issue of Martin’s residence to the district court under N.D.C.C. § 27-02-17. The statutory duty performed by the district court judge, who heard and observed the witnesses, aided the discharge of our duty in deciding whether to grant the relief requested by Berg. In other contexts, this Court has considered the district court’s findings by de novo or independent review. See Jensen v. State, 373 N.W.2d 894, 899-900 (N.D. 1985) (review of the record is de novo in habeas corpus cases); Olson v. North Dakota Dist. Court, 271 N.W.2d 574, 579 (N.D. 1978) (in supervisory writ petition for change of venue, “we make an independent review of the record to determine if a reasonable likelihood of prejudice exists, giving appreciable weight to the trial court’s findings of fact based on testimony of live witnesses.”). Other jurisdictions use a slightly different articulation of how they employ facts found by a non-appellate court. See, e.g., Turner v. Commonwealth, 694 S.E.2d 251, 262-63 (Va. Ct. App. 2010) (stating that in original jurisdiction habeas corpus cases, a lower court’s factual findings are entitled to deference and are binding upon the appellate court exercising original jurisdiction unless plainly wrong or without evidence to support them). [¶15] Regardless of how we describe our use of the record, here the district court’s factual findings are entitled to appreciable weight. The district court found after 2016 Martin began working exclusively in North Dakota. Our review of the record indicates that Martin began working in North Dakota after that time, but not exclusively. Aside from that detail, our review of the 8 record confirms the district court’s findings are supported by substantial evidence; therefore, we adopt the remainder of the district court’s findings of fact.