Alvord & Alvord v. Patenotre

New York Supreme Court
196 Misc. 524, 1949 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2848, 92 N.Y.S.2d 514 (1949)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A domicile of choice continues until a new one is actively acquired, which requires the concurrence of both the intent to establish a new domicile and the actual physical arrival and abiding in the new location.

Facts:

The defendant maintained a domicile in New York State through the late 1940s.
The defendant formed an intention to abandon his New York domicile and establish a new permanent domicile in Switzerland.
On September 30, 1949, the defendant physically left New York.
On October 5, 1949, the defendant arrived in France.
The defendant's presence in France was merely a temporary stopover en route to Switzerland.
At the time the plaintiffs attempted service of process, the defendant had not yet physically arrived in Switzerland.

Procedural Posture:

Plaintiffs obtained an order for substituted service from the New York Supreme Court.
Plaintiffs executed service by affixing papers to the defendant's apartment door and mailing copies.
Defendant filed a motion to vacate the order for substituted service and the service made pursuant thereto.
The trial court denied the defendant's motion to vacate.
Defendant filed a motion for reargument of the decision.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a court retain personal jurisdiction over a defendant based on their domicile when the defendant has departed the state with the intent to permanently relocate but has not yet arrived at their new intended domicile?

Opinions:

Majority - Miller

Yes, a defendant remains domiciled in their original state until a new domicile is fully acquired through physical presence. The court reasoned that legal residency cannot exist in a vacuum; a person cannot reside "nowhere." Citing precedent such as Rawstorne v. Maguire, the court established that a domicile continues until a new one is successfully established. Since the defendant was merely in transit (in France) and had not yet arrived in his intended home (Switzerland), he had not completed the change of domicile. Therefore, he remained a New York domiciliary subject to the state's jurisdiction via substituted service.

Analysis:

This case illustrates the strict legal requirements for changing domicile, emphasizing that intent alone—even when accompanied by departure—is insufficient. The decision prevents a 'jurisdictional limbo' where a traveling individual might otherwise be immune to service of process. By ruling that one cannot reside 'nowhere' or in an airplane, the court reinforces the principle that an individual is always accountable to the laws of their last established domicile until they have firmly planted their flag in a new one. This ensures that defendants cannot evade creditors or legal obligations simply by being in transit.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Alvord & Alvord v. Patenotre (1949)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"