Opinion

Suarez v. Barney

  • 2005 La.App. 4 Cir. 0671
  • 903 So. 2d 555
  • 2005 La. App. LEXIS 1586
  • 2005 WL 1398722
Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal
Filed
May 9, 2005
Status
Published
Author
Hmckay
On the bench
Armstrong, Bagneris, Belsome, Bgorbaty, Cannizzaro, Gorbaty, Hmckay, III, Jones, Kirby, Lombard, Murray, Tobias
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 1.0%

The opinion

hMcKAY, J.,

concurs with reasons.

I concur and would affirm the judgment of the court below. In an election suit, an appellate court should not substitute its own fact findings, credibility calls, and reasonable inferences for those made by the trial court in the absence of manifest error. See Villane v. Azar, 566 So.2d 645, 648 (La.App. 4 Cir.1990).

It is well settled that the terms residence and domicile are not synonymous, and, while a person can have several residences, he can have only one domicile. La. C.C. art. 38; Russell v. Goldsby, 00-2595 (La.9/22/00), 780 So.2d 1048, 1051 ; Messer v. London, 438 So.2d 546 (La.1983). An individual’s domicile is the principal establishment wherein he habitually resides. Russell at 1051 . Domicile consists of two elements, residence and intent to remain. Id. The question of domicile is one of intention as well as fact, and where it appears domicile has been assumed in another location, the party seeking to show it has must overcome the legal presumption that it has not been changed. Id. The opposing party must overcome this legal presumption “positive and satisfactory proof of establishment of domicile as a matter of fact with the intention of remaining in the new place and of abandoning the former domicile.” Id. (emphasis added). When there is no declaration that a person has changed his domicile, proof of his intention depends 12upon circumstances. Id. There is a presumption against change of circumstances. Id. See also Becker v. Dean, 2003-2493 (La.9/18/03), 854 So.2d 864 .

*570 In the instant case, Mr. Barney’s driver’s license lists his address as 11900 Morrison Road; he was also registered to vote at the Morrison Road address and did so as recently as November 2, 2004. He also received some of his mail at this address. It does not appear that he has abandoned this domicile. Based on the official documentation as well as other facts, there is nothing manifestly erroneous with the trial court’s ruling. Accordingly, I would affirm the trial court’s judgment.

JONES, J. Dissents.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.