DOCSLIB.ORG

Nationality, Domicile and Habitual Residence - Does the New German Citizenship Law Call for a Change of a Principal Connecting Factor in Private International Law ?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nationality, Domicile and Habitual Residence - Does the New German Citizenship Law Call for a Change of a Principal Connecting Factor in Private International Law ? University of Georgia School of Law Digital Commons @ Georgia Law LLM Theses and Essays Student Works and Organizations 2000 NATIONALITY, DOMICILE AND HABITUAL RESIDENCE - DOES THE NEW GERMAN CITIZENSHIP LAW CALL FOR A CHANGE OF A PRINCIPAL CONNECTING FACTOR IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW ? MARC CZIESIELSKY University of Georgia School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/stu_llm Part of the Civil Law Commons, Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Election Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Repository Citation CZIESIELSKY, MARC, "NATIONALITY, DOMICILE AND HABITUAL RESIDENCE - DOES THE NEW GERMAN CITIZENSHIP LAW CALL FOR A CHANGE OF A PRINCIPAL CONNECTING FACTOR IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW ?" (2000). LLM Theses and Essays. 287. https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/stu_llm/287 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Works and Organizations at Digital Commons @ Georgia Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in LLM Theses and Essays by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Georgia Law. Please share how you have benefited from this access For more information, please contact tstriepe@uga.edu. : NATIONALITY, DOMICILE AND HftBITUAlpiOENCE- = DOES THE NEW GERMAN CITIZENSHIP LAW GALLjOR A CHANGE OF A PRINCIPAL CONNECTlNGfACTOR IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL UM? Marc Cziesielsky I 15 BOIA I AW IIBHAHV 3 8425 00347 5188 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2013 http://archive.org/details/nationalitydomicOOczie NATIONALITY, DOMICILE AND HABITUAL RESIDENCE - DOES THE NEW GERMAN CITIZENSHIP LAW CALL FOR A CHANGE OF A PRINCIPAL CONNECTING FACTOR IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW ? by MARC CZIESIELSKY J. D., University of Gottingen, Germany 1999 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF LAWS ATHENS, GEORGIA 2000 ©2000 Marc Cziesielsky All Rights Reserved NATIONALITY, DOMICILE AND HABITUAL RESIDENCE: DOES THE NEW GERMAN CITIZENSHIP LAW CALL FOR A CHANGE OF A PRINCIPAL CONNECTING FACTOR IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW ? by MARC CZIESIELSKY Approved: i^*^ Date c/doi Major Professor (L JIaPK^UL SU 7W^ Date Lf^jXtDO Chairman, Reading Committee proved: p. Graduate Dean (A Clam> Jvuv< l Date Acknowledgments I would like to dedicate this thesis to my parents and to my beloved fiancee Marina Korjova. Without the financial and mental support of my parents, this thesis would have never come into existence and I would not have had the opportunity to spend a wonderful year here in Georgia. Furthermore, the thesis and even my entire life would not have been what it is without the wonderful and strong emotional support by my fiancee who I have met here during my year at UGA. Marisha has done a wonderful job in helping me with holding up even in frustrating and difficult times of research and annoying word processing. Furthermore, I would like to expressly thank Mr. Gabriel Wilner, my major professor and "father" of the LL.M. students for the guidance and support offered during the last two semesters at UGA. Without him, the LL.M. program would not be what it is, and that is one of the best and most academic programs in the entire nation. Nowhere else could a combination between academic work (with the thesis) and work in classes about American law subjects be better combined than in this program. Thank y'all. IV Table Of Contents Page Acknowledgments iv Chapter I - Introduction 1 Chapter II - The newly enacted German Citizenship Law 5 A. Obtaining German nationality as a result of the introduction of the ius soli Principle and by naturalization 6 B. Details about the increase in number of citizens with double nationality. ... 9 C. Constitutionality of the new law 17 D. Conclusion 42 Chapter III - The solution under the current German Private International Law 43 A. Impacts of the new citizenship law on the application of article 5(1) EGBGB. 43 B. Evaluation of the current article 5(1) EGBGB - Time for a change ? 45 C Conclusion 55 Chapter IV - The Common Law concept of domicile 57 A. The English Concept 57 B. The American approach 67 VI C. Other Common Law jurisdictions 82 D. Conclusion 93 Chapter V - The Concept of habitual residence 95 A. The German concept 95 B. The approach of common law jurisdictions 100 C. The approach of Hague Conventions and the Council of Europe 103 D. Conclusion 107 Chapter VI - Concluding suggestions with respect to a change in article 5 (1) EGBGB 110 Appendix 114 Bibliography 117 - Chapter I Introduction On February 19. 1999. the State election in the German State of Hessen triggered a heavy reaction among those who were following the elections over television. More precisely, their response was divided along their political preference. Those in support of the governing party were shocked and those in favor of the opposition were enthusiastic. The reason for this reaction was that the former opposition had just won the State elections with a stunning and unexpected landslide victory. Although analysts may dispute the details, one element clearly stands out. Many voters from the entire spectrum of different parties voted for the opposition because of her preceding public campaign. A key part of this campaign was a successful petition against a new citizenship law. which was proposed by the new German federal government only a couple of weeks before the election. 1 The new law's purpose was to give legal aliens living in Germany a choice to become German citizens without having to give up the nationality which was conferred on them by their parentage or descent. The campaign led by the opposition sought to motivate people against the general granting of double nationality and was quite successful as the landslide victory showed. Giinter Renner. Grundgesetz und deutsche Staatsangehorigkeit [Constitution and German Citizenship}. Nele Justiz 230. 234 ( 1 999). 1 In the following months, the proposed citizenship law was significantly modified. A protracted legislative and highly political process led to a compromise between some of the opposing views and resulted in the creation of a combined ius soli and ius sanguinis principle. After the approval of the German Federal Council the new citizenship law was finally enacted by federal legislation in July 1999." This newly enacted law will have a significant impact especially on German private international law that is already in 3 discussion. It ended the domination of the ius sanguinis principle in German citizenship law and introduced elements of the ius soli principle, which were so far unknown to the German citizenship system. Although the law as finally enacted allows double nationality on a far more limited basis than the original draft, the effects of an expected increasing number of people with double nationality will most certainly demand an adjustment to certain German private international law sections. The major issue arises out of the fact that German private international law uses nationality as the predominant connecting factor in determining a person's legal status (e.g. marriage and marriage property law. right of succession and the right to the use of a name).' Apart from this main issue, however, there is also the matter of constitutionality. The opposition has already made it clear that it will attack the new law in the Federal Constitution Court on the grounds of being unconstitutional. If the new law is considered Gesetz zur Reform des Staatsangehorigkeitsrechts [Federal Law concerning the reform of Citizenship Law] v. 15.7.1999 (BGB1. I S. 1618-20). See Urs Peter Gruber, Kollisionsrechtliche Implikationen des neuen Staatsangehorigkeitsrechts [The Implications of the new German Citizenship Law on Private International Law], PRAXIS DES INTERNATIONALEN Privat- Und VEREAHRENSRECHTS 426-429 (1999) [hereinafter IPRax]. See Jiirgen Riittgers, Sie haben ein Flickwerk vorgelegt [You have submitted a patchwork], 21-22 DAS PARLAMENT 16 (1999); see also The Motion of the F.D.P. Parliamentary Group in BlTNDESTAGSDRUCKSACHE 14 / 867 P. 17 (1999). 5 ElNFUHRUNGSGESETZ Zum BURGERLICHEN GESETZBUCH [German Private International Law] art. 10, 13- 15, 25 (F.R.G.) [hereinafter EGBGB], to be unconstitutional, it is not likely to withstand the attack and the effects on German private international law will fade. For this reason, a part of this thesis will deal with constitutionality issues, which also involve a short glimpse at the principle of pacta sunt servanda in the field of international law. The general expectation across the entire political spectrum is that the number of people with double nationality will in increase. Therefore, since nationality alone cannot connect a person with the substantive rules of a particular system if that person has two 6 nationalities, the problems with this particular connecting factor are also likely to increase. One or more additional factors must then be used to reach a result. In Germany, this is achieved by introducing the concept of "effective" nationality in article 5 (1) of the Private International Law Code (EGBGB). One detail, which is set forth in this provision and will be given special consideration in this thesis, is the concept of rigidly preferring the German nationality to any other by declaring it to be the effective nationality in all cases. The expected increase of double nationality cases has already raised the issue of whether this particular code section should be modified. Furthermore, this thesis will question whether this rigid concept should be completely abolished after an assessment of both the constitutionality and the exact implications of the new citizenship law. In the light of the conclusions, the comparative part of this thesis will then focus on a more general approach and will compare the 6 Cf. 1 Lawrence Collins et al., Dicey And Morris On The Conflict Of Laws 169 (1 1th ed., Trevor C.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Forum Disputes in Children Matters
    Forum Disputes in Children Matters When a dispute arises as to which country should have jurisdiction in relation to matters concerning children, the focus is usually on where the child in question was habitually resident at the time the application was made. Habitual residence is an undefined factual concept which requires analysis on a case by cases basis but which usually looks to establish where the child was living on a regular (or habitual basis) and where they have their centre of interests (e.g. school, doctor etc.). An alternative for resolving jurisdiction disputes, particularly when no international conventions apply, is called forum non conveniens. This literally means ‘an inconvenient forum’ and it can be used to argue that a country should not be dealing with a matter because another country is better placed to do so. This debate arises more often in commercial cases or divorce cases where, for example, the dispute relates to property or people in a different country to where proceedings have been issued. It would therefore be inconvenient for another country to consider the dispute as, for example, they would not easily have access to witnesses or information. Forum non convieniens does not often arise in the context of children proceedings but this is exactly what happened in the recent case of Re K [2019] EWHC 466 (Fam). The Family Court had already established that the child in this case was habitually resident in England & Wales. The child had travelled to India with both parents for a temporary visit, however, the father then seized the child's travel documents and refused to allow him to return to England with the mother.
    [Show full text]
  • Conflict of Laws: Contracts and Other Obligations F
    Louisiana Law Review Volume 35 | Number 1 Fall 1974 Conflict of Laws: Contracts and Other Obligations F. Michael Adkins Repository Citation F. Michael Adkins, Conflict of Laws: Contracts and Other Obligations, 35 La. L. Rev. (1974) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol35/iss1/8 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact kreed25@lsu.edu. COMMENTS CONFLICT OF LAWS: CONTRACTS AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS In ordering relations between parties to a contract, the courts have developed standards for choosing between conflicting laws of two or more jurisdictions in at least four areas of contract law: capac- ity of the parties to contract, availability and nature of the remedy, formal validity, and substantive validity.' Of the fascicle of conflicts rules applicable to such a problem, those providing the substantive law to determine the validity of the alleged contract have been dealt 1. Louisiana jurisprudence peculiarly splits these considerations of conflicts prob- lems sounding in contract into separate categories. Capacity: The law of the domicile of the parties in question controls the capacity to contract. See Pilcher v. Paulk, 228 So. 2d 663 (La. App. 3d Cir. 1969) (minors); Sun Oil Co. v. Guidry, 99 So. 2d 424 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1957) (minors). Louisiana courts have regularly held that the law of the domicile of the parties governs the capacity of a party to contract with his or her spouse for a regime other than the community of gains, or for a settlement or division of property owned in common.
    [Show full text]
  • Domicile Act 1982
    Domicile Act 1982 Act No. 1 of 1982 as amended This compilation was prepared on 10 July 2008 taking into account amendments up to Act No. 73 of 2008 The text of any of those amendments not in force on that date is appended in the Notes section The operation of amendments that have been incorporated may be affected by application provisions that are set out in the Notes section Prepared by the Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing, Attorney-General’s Department, Canberra Contents 1 Short title [see Note 1].......................................................................1 2 Commencement [see Note 1].............................................................1 3 Object and application.......................................................................1 4 Interpretation .....................................................................................2 5 Operation of Act................................................................................2 6 Abolition of rule of dependent domicile of married woman..............3 7 Abolition of rule of revival of domicile of origin ..............................3 8 Capacity to have independent domicile .............................................3 9 Domicile of certain children ..............................................................3 10 Intention for domicile of choice ........................................................4 11 Domicile in a union ...........................................................................4 12 Evidence of acquisition of domicile of choice...................................4
    [Show full text]
  • The United States Supreme Court Limits Non-Domicile Jurisdiction Over Foreign Companies
    The United States Supreme Court Limits Non-Domicile Jurisdiction over Foreign Companies By Scott J. Hymani and Erin S. Kubotaii The inevitable risk of doing business in the United States is that one day your company may be sued. The question is: but where? Our system of federalism unfortunately suggests that where a company might be sued can be outcome determinative of the result of the case. Accordingly, foreign companies doing business in the United States have faced forum-shopping plaintiffs hailing them into Court in a state where they do business, but where neither the plaintiff nor the wrong have any nexus to the forum state. The United States Supreme Court recently put a stop to such forum-shopping Plaintiffs in Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Superior Court of California, 582 U.S. ___ (June 19, 2017) (“Bristol-Myers”), and clarified where a foreign business may by subject to suit. First, a brief primer on personal jurisdiction and our system of federalism is warranted. The 14th Amendment of the United States’ Constitution limits the extent to which State courts can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Personal jurisdiction is necessary in order for a State court to exercise legal authority over a party and to render a valid judgment. The defendant’s relationship to and activity in a forum State determines whether a State can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Obviously, a defendant who is domiciled in the State is subject to the State’s jurisdiction. This is called general jurisdiction. A business’s “domicile” is often regarded as its home, such as where it is incorporated or where it maintains its principal place of its business.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of the United States
    No. 18-935 In The Supreme Court of the United States MICHELLE MONASKY, Petitioner, v. DOMENIC TAGLIERI, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE FREDERICK K. COX INTERNATIONAL LAW CENTER IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER MICHAEL P. SCHARF DAVID A. CARNEY STEPHEN J. PETRAS, JR. Counsel of Record ANDREW S. POLLIS ELLIOT P. FORHAN AVIDAN Y. COVER BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP ALEKSANDAR CUIC Key Tower THEODORE V. PARRAN, III 127 Public Square, Suite 2000 Frederick K. Cox Cleveland, Ohio 44114 International Law Center (216) 621-0200 Case Western Reserve dcarney@bakerlaw.com University School of Law 10900 Euclid Ave. Cleveland, Ohio 44106 (216) 368-2000 Counsel for Amicus Curiae i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE ................. 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................... 2 ARGUMENT ............................................................. 4 I. THE COURT LOOKS TO INTERNATIONAL LAW IN DETERMINING THE SHARED EXPECTATIONS OF TREATY PARTIES. ........... 4 II. THE CHILD ABDUCTION CONVENTION EMPLOYED THE HABITUAL-RESIDENCE CONCEPT TO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY AND DISCRETION. ......................................... 6 III. UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED INTERNATIONAL LAW, THE FLEXIBLE APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION PERMITS A FINDING OF NO HABITUAL RESIDENCE. ............................................... 10 IV. THESE DECISIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE NOTION THAT THE HABITUAL RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT ESTABLISHES A THESHOLD EVIDENTIARY SHOWING ............................. 14 V. THE COURT SHOULD CONDUCT A PLENARY REVIEW OF THE FACTUAL RECORD AND HOLD RESPONDENT DID NOT MEET HIS BURDEN HERE. ................. 21 CONCLUSION ........................................................ 26 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases A v A (Children: Habitual Residence) [2013] UKSC 60 ....................................... 10, 12, 13 Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (2010) .............................5 Air France v.
    [Show full text]
  • Succession Regulation 650/2012
    20 ELRA Newsletter / 2019 ELRA Newsletter / 2020 21 Succession Regulation by Paula Pott Regulation Nº 650/2012 her will designating her child as Regulation notaries and of Regulation Nº 650/2012, Judgement of the Court of Justice of the European universal heir, such a succession other non-judicial authorities it constitutes an authentic Union (CJEU) in case C-80/19 has a cross border impact. shall rule on disputed facts, instrument which has in Key words: cross border succession; last habitual resi- Therefore, it is a cross border in addition to meeting the another Member State the dence; court; rules of jurisdiction; decision. succession for the purposes of requirements provided for by same evidential value as in Regulation Nº 650/2012. Article 3(2) of the regulation. the Member State of origin or In this judgment, the CJEU By issuing a national certificate the most comparable possible interprets Articles 3(2), 3(1)(g) THE LAST HABITUAL of inheritance, a Lithuanian effects. and (i), 4, 5, 7, 22 and 83(2) and RESIDENCE OF THE notary is not equated to a court In such case, in the light of Paula Pott (4) of Regulation Nº 650/2012. DECEASED MUST BE for the purposes of Article 3(2) Article 59 (1), second paragraph, The following conclusions, in FIXED IN A SINGLE of Regulation Nº 650/2012 of Regulation Nº 650/2012, to addition to the previous case- STATE where, under national law, he use an authentic instrument the forum of Lithuania as the law, can be drawn from this The deceased’s last habitual does not have jurisdiction to in another Member State, it is one competent to decide the decision, clarifying namely, residence within the meaning of rule on disputed facts in matters possible to ask the authority succession, according to Article the notions of cross border Regulation Nº 650/2012 must be of succession but is limited to which issued the document 5 of Regulation Nº 650/2012.
    [Show full text]
  • Domicile Vs. Residence Vs. Nationality: Their Significance in the Context of EU, English, Swiss and Italian Succession Law
    05/03/2015 Domicile vs. Residence vs. Nationality: Their significance in the context of EU, English, Swiss and Italian succession law Lucy Johnson Alessia Paoletto Connecting Factors ? Residence ? Nationality ? Domicile 1 05/03/2015 Nationality • Nationality is key connecting factor to identify the law applicable to succession • Principle of universality of succession – The identified law governs all issues related to the estate… – …including real estate property located abroad • Possibility to elect for the law of the country of habitual residence by will Nationality • Italian citizenship is mainly based on ius sanguinis: – the offspring of (at least) one Italian national is Italian, irrespective of his/her birthplace – the acquisition of Italian nationality is automatic and by operation of law • Other ways to acquire Italian nationality: – long-time residence in Italy (typically 10 years) – election if you are born in Italy from foreign parents – marriage to an Italian national (after 2 or 3 years) – adoption by an Italian national • Italian law allows for multiple nationality, but Italian nationality prevails over the others in any event of conflict • Italian nationality must be waived expressly 2 05/03/2015 A special case from the relics of history… 1912-1983 1912-1948 Nationality • English succession law and IHT generally relies on domicile rather than nationality • Nationality a relevant factor for deciding where a person domiciled • Nationality is now relevant under the Brussels IV Regulation: • Art. 22(1): ‘A person may choose as the law to govern his succession as a whole the law of the State whose nationality he possesses at the time of making the choice or at the time of death.’ • Execution of wills: 1961 Hague Convention on the Conflicts of Laws Relating to the Form of Testamentary Dispositions (incorporated into English law by Wills Act 1963): • A will is formally valid if executed according to law of testator’s domicile, nationality, or habitual residence, or the place where it is executed.
    [Show full text]
  • THE EU SUCCESSION REGULATION No 650/2012
    THE EU SUCCESSION REGULATION No 650/2012 The Succession Regulation and existing and future Private International Law issues Friday 11th March 2016 Richard Frimston Solicitor and Notary Public England & Wales European Union The United Kingdom The United Kingdoms, Principality and Province: Scotland Northern Ireland England & Wales Not: Ireland Channel Islands Jersey Guernsey Alderney and Sark Isle of Man Succession Conflicts of Law Conflicts of Law / PIL Analysis • Jurisdiction • Applicable Law (choice of law) • Recognition and Enforcement of judgments • Acceptance and Enforcement of documents European Union . Not a Federation? . Treaties – TEU and TFEU (Protocols 21 and 22) . Regulations – directly applicable EU Law . Directives – EU Law that requires Member State enactment Some European Union Regulations . Brussels I (recast), BI bis . Brussels II bis [to be further recast, applies to, but not within UK] . Rome I . Rome II . Rome III [enhanced co-operation, not Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden or UK] . Rome IV [not adopted, but to be subject to enhanced co- operation? Ex Brussels III, not UK] . Maintenance Obligations Regulation [does apply within UK] and 2007 Hague Protocol [Ireland but not UK] . Succession Regulation (ex Brussels IV) [not Denmark, UK or Ireland] UK Succession Rights • Deceased dying domiciled in England & Wales, spouse or civil partner and dependants including co-habitants, children can make a claim under Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 • Deceased dying domiciled in Scotland, movables are subject to prior rights for spouse and legal rights for children (subject to possible review?) • Deceased dying domiciled in Northern Ireland, spouse or civil partner and dependants including co-habitants, children can make a claim under Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Order 1979 Private International Law Formal Validity of Wills .
    [Show full text]
  • Lis Pendes and Forum Non Conveniens at the Hague Conference
    Brooklyn Journal of International Law Volume 26 | Issue 3 Article 24 1-1-2001 Lis Pendes and Forum Non Conveniens at the Hague Conference: The rP eliminary Draft onC vention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters Martine Stuckelberg Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil Recommended Citation Martine Stuckelberg, Lis Pendes and Forum Non Conveniens at the Hague Conference: The Preliminary Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters, 26 Brook. J. Int'l L. (2001). Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil/vol26/iss3/24 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brooklyn Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks. ARTICLE LIS PENDENS AND FORUM NON CONVENIENS AT THE HAGUE CONFERENCE Martine Stickelberg* I. INTRODUCTION Peter and Julia are both living in Germany. They buy a package tour of Arizona in a travel agency in Berlin. The trav- el is organized by a German tour operator and only German tourists are part of the group. While in Phoenix, Julia negli- gently closes the door of the bus on Peter's hand. Peter suffers from two broken fingers. Can Peter sue Julia in Phoenix Dis- trict Court? Civil law and common law countries have a totally differ- ent approach to the problem. In most civil law countries, the court will look at the statute. If it provides that the place of the wrongful act is a basis for jurisdiction, the court must proceed to consider the case.
    [Show full text]
  • Conflict of Laws-Domicile-Residence
    Indiana Law Journal Volume 7 Issue 5 Article 3 2-1932 Conflict of Laws-Domicile-Residence Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Conflict of Laws Commons Recommended Citation (1932) "Conflict of Laws-Domicile-Residence," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 7 : Iss. 5 , Article 3. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol7/iss5/3 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact rvaughan@indiana.edu. RECENT CASE NOTES CONFLICT OF LAws--DoMIcIL--RESIDENNcF--In an action under section 11247 to 11255, inclusive, Burns Ann. St. 1926, concerning the incorporation of towns, the facts show that many of the individuals casting votes opposed to incorporation lived in cottages situated within the territorial limits of the town and that these inhabitants had made statements that they had established their residence there. The cottages were of the ordinary lake front type, some even being without chimneys, and were used as dwelling places only part of the year. The evidence also shows that these citizens owned homes elsewhere which were substantially built houses containing modern improvements and conveniences. Held, (1) bodily residence in place, coupled with intention to make such place a home, establishes elect- or's residence. (2) Intention to establish residence must be determined by facts and conduct, elector's own statement being insufficient.
    [Show full text]
  • Domicile of a Married Woman, The
    University of Missouri Bulletin Law Series Volume 29 January 1924 Article 4 1924 Domicile of a Married Woman, The James L. Parks Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/ls Part of the Family Law Commons, and the Law and Gender Commons Recommended Citation James L. Parks, Domicile of a Married Woman, The, 29 Bulletin Law Series. (1924) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/ls/vol29/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Missouri Bulletin Law Series by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact bassettcw@missouri.edu. LAW SERIES 29, MISSOURI BULLETIN THE DOMICILE OF A MARRIED WOMAN Originally the rule was that the domicile of a married wom- an was that of her husband.' It made no difference what the actual facts were, a wife would not be heard to say that she had a separate domicile. This notion was largely due to the law's conception of a married couple as one person, which idea was 1. Warrender v. Warrender (1835) 2 Cl. & Fin. 488, 6 Eng. Rep. 1239; Yelverton v. Yelverton (1859) 1 Sw., & Tr. 574, 164 Eng. Rep. 866; Armytage v. Armytage (1898) P. 178; Ogden v. Ogden (1908) 1 P. 46; Harrison v. Harrison (1852) 20 Ala. 629 (dictum); Kashaw v. Kashaw (1853) 3 Cal. 312; Dougherty v. Snyder (1826) 15 S.
    [Show full text]
  • About This Questionnaire 1. Couples Cohabiting Outside Marriage May Face Legal Uncertainties When They Leave the State Where T
    PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW ISSUES RELATING TO COHABITATION OUTSIDE MARRIAGE (INCLUDING REGISTERED PARTNERSHIPS) Questionnaire (E) About this Questionnaire 1. Couples cohabiting outside marriage may face legal uncertainties when they leave the State where the registered partnership or unmarried cohabitation was formed and become subject to a foreign legal system that does not necessarily recognise their status in relation to one another, or in relation to their (adopted) children, or third parties. Even if they do not leave the State wherein their relationship originated, issues may arise abroad concerning the validity or effects of their relationship or aspects thereof. 2. The Hague Conference on Private International Law (“Hague Conference”) has been monitoring the legal situation of cohabiting couples and registered partners, focusing on the private international law implications, since 1987. In March 2015, the Permanent Bureau presented an “[u]pdate on the developments in internal law and private international law concerning cohabitation outside marriage, including registered partnerships” (“2015 Update on cohabitation outside marriage”)1 at the Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Hague Conference (“the Council”). The Council subsequently asked the Permanent Bureau to prepare a Questionnaire to seek further information on private international law issues relating to cohabitation outside marriage, including registered partnerships. It requested that a report on the results from this survey be presented to the Council in 2017.2 3. In line with the mandate provided by the Council, the objective of this Questionnaire is to gather information from various national legal systems about aspects of internal and private international law relating to cohabitation outside marriage (e.g., information about the recognition of partnerships registered abroad or the applicable law in cross-border situations).
    [Show full text]