Courtney J. Lundquist v. Precision Valley Aviation, Inc.
1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 22971, 1991 WL 192266, 946 F.2d 8 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For the purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction, a person's domicile is determined by a holistic review of various factors, with significant weight given to formal declarations made to government bodies, such as voter registration and representations on corporate filings.
Facts:
- Courtney Lundquist sold stock in Winnipesaukee Airlines, Inc. to defendants Precision Valley Aviation, Inc., Walter Fawcett, and Susan Fawcett in exchange for promissory notes.
- The defendants were citizens of New Hampshire.
- Lundquist owned property in New Hampshire, maintained a phone line there, had held a New Hampshire driver's license since 1986, and used the property as a summer home.
- Beginning in 1984, Lundquist also owned property in Florida, maintained bank accounts there, had a Florida driver's license, and listed a Florida residence on his federal tax returns.
- Lundquist was registered to vote in New Hampshire from 1976 through 1990 and actively voted in New Hampshire elections.
- On corporate annual reports filed with the New Hampshire Secretary of State for 1986, 1987, and 1988, Lundquist or his wife listed his address as being in New Hampshire.
Procedural Posture:
- Courtney Lundquist filed a lawsuit against Precision Valley Aviation, Inc. and others in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to recover on promissory notes.
- Lundquist's complaint asserted federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, initially claiming he resided in Massachusetts.
- Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Lundquist, like them, was a citizen of New Hampshire, thus destroying complete diversity.
- Lundquist opposed the motion, now claiming he was a citizen of Florida, and requested to amend his complaint.
- The district court, relying on affidavits and oral arguments, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that Lundquist was a citizen of New Hampshire.
- Lundquist (appellant) appealed the district court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
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 person's continued voting registration and representations of residence on corporate filings in one state provide sufficient evidence to establish domicile in that state for diversity jurisdiction purposes, despite substantial evidence of ties to another state?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. A person's voting registration and representations of residence on official corporate filings are weighty factors sufficient to support a finding of domicile in that state, even when contradicted by other significant evidence. The court reviews a district court's determination of domicile for clear error. While Lundquist presented substantial evidence of domicile in Florida—such as bank accounts, property ownership, and tax filings—there was also strong countervailing evidence of New Hampshire domicile. Specifically, his active voter registration in New Hampshire was tantamount to a representation of New Hampshire domicile to state officials. Similarly, citing O’Toole v. Arlington Trust Co., the court found his representations on corporate filings to be 'strong evidence.' Because there were two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them was not clearly erroneous, and the appellate court will not reverse it.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the evidentiary weight given to different factors in a close-call domicile analysis for diversity jurisdiction. It establishes that a party's formal, public declarations to state authorities, such as voter registration and corporate filings, can be dispositive even in the face of conflicting evidence about a party's day-to-day life. The ruling reinforces the highly deferential 'clearly erroneous' standard of review for factual findings by a district court. This makes it more difficult for individuals with connections to multiple states to establish domicile in a preferred state for litigation purposes if their official representations point elsewhere.
