Court Opinion

ID: 9729639
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:45:27.445074+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:00.332900
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
A clear inference can be drawn that Dyanna Person only resided in Illinois temporarily to see if her marriage difficulties could be resolved. However, when she realized that the problems could not be worked out, she returned to Indiana.
The court in State Election Bd. v. Bayh (1988), Ind., 521 N.E.2d 1313, stated the law in this area:
“A change of domicile requires an actual moving with an intent to go to a given place and remain there. ‘It must be an intention coupled with acts evidencing that intention to make the new domicile a home in fact.... [T]here must be the intention to abandon the old domicile; the intention to acquire a new one; and residence in the new place in order to accomplish a change of domicile.’ [State ex rel. Flaugher v. Rogers (1948), 226 Ind. 32, 35-36, 77 N.E.2d 594, 595-596.]”
*165Id. at 1317. (Emphasis added.).
Following the logic of Bayh, it is obvious from Dyanna’s testimony that she only intended to stay in Illinois if her marriage could be worked out. She did not have the intention to move to Illinois and remain there permanently, but only to remain there on a trial basis.
This case can be compared to Moody v. Moody (1986), Ind.App., 488 N.E.2d 378. Lonnie Moody moved to Indiana in December of 1983, nine months before he initiated divorce proceedings. However, during this nine-month period he moved to Tennessee for approximately three months. Lonnie testified that he went to Tennessee to look for work and that he returned when he could not find suitable employment. His residency in Indiana was simply interrupted temporarily when he went to Tennessee for the sole purpose of finding employment. Similarly, Dyanna’s residence in Indiana was interrupted temporarily .when she went to Illinois to try to work out her marital problems. When she realized that the problems could not be resolved, she returned to her residence in Indiana.
This Court’s standard of review is well settled. We will neither reweigh the evidence nor reassess the credibility of the witnesses. Bayh, supra, at 1315. The trial court was justified in finding that subject-matter jurisdiction existed. Clear inferences can be drawn from Dyanna’s testimony that she only left Indiana temporarily to see if her marital problems could be resolved. Therefore, in accordance with our standard of review, I would affirm the trial court’s decision.