Opinion ID: 836180
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: violating law and constitution

Text: The JTC has issued a decision and recommendation for discipline in this case concluding, among other things, that respondent moved outside the division from which he was elected in violation of Article 6, § 20 of the constitution and that he was not a registered elector of the division from which he was elected, as required by MCL 600.8201. According to the JTC, these are violations of the law and constitution that also constitute judicial misconduct sanctionable under Canons 1 and 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Article 6, §§ 20 and 30(2) of the constitution. [24] I agree. Article 6, § 20 of the Michigan Constitution states: Whenever a justice or judge removes his domicile beyond the limits of the territory from which he was elected or appointed, he shall have vacated his office. The territory from which he was elected necessarily means the geographic location from which respondent received the requisite number of votes to obtain his judicial office, i.e., the 1st division of the 63rd District Court. [25] Additionally, domicile is defined as [t]hat place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment and to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning. Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed.). A domicile is that place where a person has voluntarily fixed his abode not for a mere special or temporary purpose, but with a present intention of making it his home, either permanently or for an indefinite or unlimited length of time. Henry v. Henry, 362 Mich. 85, 101-102, 106 N.W.2d 570 (1960) (citation and quotation marks omitted). One cannot be permanently located in more than one place; one cannot be domiciled in more than 1 place; one cannot intend to remain for an extended period of time in more than 1 place. In re Scheyer's Estate, 336 Mich. 645, 651-652, 59 N.W.2d 33 (1953). Generally, the determination of domicile is a question of fact. However, where, as here, the underlying facts are not in dispute, domicile is a question of law for the court. Fowler v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 254 Mich. App. 362, 364, 656 N.W.2d 856 (2002). Further, MCL 600.8201 requires that a candidate for and a judge of the district court shall be licensed to practice law in this state and shall be a registered elector of the district and election division in which he seeks to hold office. During the master's hearing, respondent testified to the following facts regarding his domicile between 2000 and 2008, which the JTC used in rendering its decision. Respondent stated that from 1984 until 2000 he owned a house on South Monroe Street, within the 1st division, where he purportedly lived until 1999. In 1998, he purchased a home on 201 Honey Creek Avenue in Ada Township, an area outside the 1st division from which he was elected. He claimed that he was not domiciled there until 2005. Respondent testified that the year after he bought the property at 201 Honey Creek, he sold the Monroe Property because he needed the money, and then moved to his sister's house at 260 Oak Street, within the 1st division, where I was basically a tenant, and that was in 2000. More specifically, respondent stated, [W]hen I bought 201 Honey Creek, that was a lot of money for me, and that's why I sold the [Monroe Property] and moved to my sister's house [at 260 Oak Street], who was kind enough not to charge me any rent[.] Respondent changed his license and voter registration to reflect this move. He claimed that he maintained this living arrangement until 2002, when he began renting an apartment located on Thirteen Mile, which was also in the 1st division. Respondent again changed both his driver's license and voting address to his Thirteen Mile property. However, during this time, respondent admits that he spent a significant amount of time at 201 Honey Creek and slept there a lot. In other words, respondent testified that he sold his primary residence in 1999 so he could fix up 201 Honey Creek and live with his sister at no cost until 2002, when he began living at Thirteen Mile. In 2002, respondent purchased another property, 109 Honey Creek, and then purchased yet another property on Belding Road, which is within the 1st division, and as to which he testified, I bought that in June of, I think 2003, and I didn't move there until early 2004. And I lived at [Thirteen Mile] until I moved in, but it wasn't when I bought it. [26] Respondent changed his voter registration on March 11, 2004, and his driver's license on March 23, 2004, to the Belding Road address. However, he registered his mailing address with the Secretary of State as being the address of the 1st division courthouse. In regard to the period immediately following respondent's purchase of 109 Honey Creek, he testified to the following: That house [109 Honey Creek] I had to get done because there was a person that wanted to buy it, and so I was down there a lot and I worked late into the night, and a number of times I just went up and slept at 201 [Honey Creek]. If I didn't work that late, I went back to the Bostwick Lake, Belding Road address. Respondent stated that Belding Road continued to be his domicile until December 5, 2005, when he moved to 201 Honey Creek, which was further confirmed by his filing of a homestead exemption for 201 Honey Creek in 2006. However, despite admitting that he was domiciled at 201 Honey Creek after 2005, respondent testified that, in 2007, he (a) voted within the 1st division using his Belding Road address, [27] (b) applied for a concealed weapons permit on February 7, 2007, using his Belding Road address, [28] (c) never changed his voter registration to 201 Honey Creek, [29] and (d) never changed his driver's license to the 201 Honey Creek address. [30] He also admitted knowing that he had to change his voter registration and driver's license, and, despite consistently doing so during every move from 2000 to 2005, he failed to do so once he moved to 201 Honey Creek. From this testimony, respondent expressly admits to moving outside the 1st division to 201 Honey Creek as of 2005. He also admits that he intended for that location to be his domicile. Both of these admissions are reflected in the master's and the JTC's findings of fact. These admissions alone are sufficient to demonstrate that respondent moved outside of the territory from which he was elected, which is a violation of Article 6, § 20 of the constitution. Similarly, the fact that respondent moved outside of the 1st division made him ineligible to be a registered elector of that division, regardless of the fact that respondent improperly voted in that division after 2005 in violation of MCL 600.8201. Thus, respondent failed to comply with Article 6, § 20 of the constitution and MCL 600.8201, which is also violative of Canon 2(B) of the Code of Judicial Conduct's requirement that a judge observe the law, and as a result Canon 1's requirement that a judge maintain the integrity of the judiciary. Additionally, respondent's conduct runs afoul of MCR 9.104: (A) The following acts or omissions by an attorney,[ [31] ] individually or in concert with another person, are misconduct and grounds for discipline, whether or not occurring in the course of an attorney-client relationship:    (2) conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach[.] There can be no question that a judge's failure to obey the law, which he has taken an oath to uphold, exposes the legal profession [and] the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach.