Dorrance's Estate
163 A. 303, 309 Pa. 151 (1932)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When determining domicile, a person's conduct and the objective facts of where they establish their principal residence will prevail over their express declarations of intent to retain a former domicile, especially when such declarations are self-serving and motivated by tax avoidance.
Facts:
- Dr. John T. Dorrance, born in Pennsylvania, established his domicile in Cinnaminson, New Jersey in 1911 with his family.
- In 1925, Dorrance purchased 'Woodcrest,' a large and expensive estate in Radnor, Pennsylvania, for his family's social and educational benefit.
- In November 1925, the Dorrance family moved into the Radnor estate, transferring their personal effects and establishing it as their primary family residence.
- The Radnor estate was significantly larger, more lavish, staffed with far more servants, and much more expensive to maintain than the Cinnaminson property.
- After 1925, the family's entire social life, including children's schooling, large parties, and a daughter's wedding reception, was centered at the Radnor estate.
- Dorrance continued to maintain the Cinnaminson house with a reduced staff, and his mother and sister resided there for a time before their deaths.
- To take advantage of New Jersey's favorable tax and inheritance laws, Dorrance consistently and formally declared his intention to remain domiciled in New Jersey through his will, voting records, tax filings, and an agreement with his wife.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania made an appraisement of John T. Dorrance's estate for transfer inheritance tax purposes.
- The executors of Dorrance's Estate appealed this tax assessment to the Orphans’ Court of Delaware County, the court of first instance.
- The Orphans’ Court, after a hearing, found that Dorrance was domiciled in New Jersey and issued a decree setting aside the Commonwealth's tax appraisement.
- The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as appellant, appealed the Orphans' Court decree to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the state's highest court.
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 conduct and manner of living, which establish a principal home in a new state, override their express declarations of intent to retain their former domicile in another state for purposes of determining legal domicile?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Frazer
Yes, a person's actions in establishing a true home in a new state override their contrary declarations of intent. The evidence clearly establishes that after 1925, the Radnor estate was the true, fixed, permanent home and principal establishment of Dorrance and his family. Although Dorrance expressed a desire to remain domiciled in New Jersey, his conduct demonstrated a clear intent to make Pennsylvania his home. The court reasoned that declarations of intent, particularly when self-serving and motivated by tax avoidance, cannot supersede the dominant facts of where a person actually lives. Acts speak louder than words, and Dorrance’s daily life, family activities, and the scale of his Pennsylvania residence all pointed to Radnor as his 'technically preeminent headquarters.' The intention required for domicile is the intention to make a home in fact, not merely an intention to acquire the legal status of domicile for other purposes.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Schaffer
No, a person's express intent should control when they maintain two residences. Where a person has two fully maintained homes, the factor of residence is equivocal, and therefore intention becomes the preponderant and controlling factor. Dr. Dorrance, by every spoken declaration and nearly every formal act, clearly indicated his intention to retain his New Jersey domicile. He consulted counsel, structured his will, voted, and paid taxes with the express purpose of remaining a New Jersey domiciliary. The majority errs by not giving sufficient weight to this overwhelming evidence of intent.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Kephart
No, the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of proving that Dorrance abandoned his established New Jersey domicile. The majority incorrectly focuses on the size and expense of the Pennsylvania residence and the social life of the family, rather than on Dorrance's own deliberate acts and intentions. A person has a legal right to choose their domicile to avoid heavier taxes, and Dorrance's efforts to do so are evidence of his intent, not a reason to disregard it. The court should have accepted the findings of the trial court and recognized that Dorrance did everything in his power to retain his New Jersey residency, which should be dispositive.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational decision in the law of domicile, establishing that objective facts can triumph over subjective intent. It significantly clarifies that courts will look past a person's formal declarations to the reality of their daily life to determine their 'true' home. The ruling serves as a warning that self-serving statements aimed at tax avoidance will be heavily scrutinized and can be overridden by contradictory conduct. This precedent makes it more difficult for individuals with multiple residences to simply choose their domicile for legal or financial advantage without aligning their lifestyle to that choice, thereby shaping legal strategy in estate planning and tax law.
Unlock the full brief for Dorrance's Estate