Opinion

Alexander v. District of Columbia

  • 370 A.2d 1327
  • 1977 D.C. App. LEXIS 428
Court
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Filed
Feb 24, 1977
Status
Published
Author
Gallagher
On the bench
Kelly, Gallagher, Reilly
Cited by
5 cases
Authority
More cited than 10.1%

considering many factors specific to the individual taxpayer in determining that he had established the intent to abandon his former domicile in the District of Columbia

How later courts described this case

  • considering many factors specific to the individual taxpayer in determining that he had established the intent to abandon his former domicile in the District of Columbia
  • "to prove that persons who have left their former dwelling places and have taken up residence in another state in order to accept work in the federal civil service are domiciled in their new location, the facts adduced must demonstrate that such persons have no fixed and definite intent to return and make their homes where they were formerly domiciled'"

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

GALLAGHER, Associate Judge,

dissenting:

I would affirm the judgment of the trial court. A domicile once acquired is presumed to continue. Dixon v. Dixon, D.C. App., 190 A.2d 652 (1963); Shilkret v. Helvering, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 178 , 138 F.2d 925 (1943). Here, the trial court concluded, in essence, that the evidence did not establish an intent, to remain in Japan permanently or indefinitely. See Shilkret v. Helvering, *1331 supra at 180, 138 F.2d 925 . Though the place of residence is generally taken to be the domicile, I think the evidence adequately supports the trial court’s finding that, on this record, there was no change of domicile from the District of Columbia to Japan. Because this case involves essentially whether there was this change of domicile, I view District of Columbia v. Murphy, 314 U.S. 441 , 62 S.Ct. 303 , 86 L.Ed. 329 (1941), relied upon by the majority as factually distinguishable and not controlling. 1

I see no adequate reason to overturn the trial court’s conclusion on appellant’s domicile.

. I also do not agree that our decisions in Rzeszotarski v. Rzeszotarski, D.C.App., 296 A.2d 431 (1972), and Alves v. Alves, D.C.App., 262 A.2d 111 (1970), are compelling authority here. The factual situations in those cases are so dissimilar to this case as to render them inapplicable.

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.