Lexplug logoLexplug

Mas v. Perry

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
489 F.2d 1396 (1974)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

For purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction, a person's state citizenship is determined by their domicile, not their residence. A domicile is established by physical presence in a place combined with an intent to remain there indefinitely, and one's previous domicile is maintained until a new one is acquired.


Facts:

  • Jean Paul Mas, a citizen of France, and Judy Mas, a citizen of Mississippi, were married in Mississippi.
  • Prior to and after their marriage, both were graduate students and teaching assistants at Louisiana State University (LSU) in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
  • The couple rented an apartment in Baton Rouge from Oliver H. Perry, a citizen of Louisiana.
  • The couple discovered that their bedroom and bathroom contained two-way mirrors through which Perry had been watching them for several months.
  • At the time the lawsuit was filed, the Mases were living in Louisiana only to complete their studies and had not decided where they would reside permanently afterward.
  • Although Judy Mas testified she did not intend to return to her parents' home in Mississippi, she had not formed an intent to make any other state her permanent home.

Procedural Posture:

  • Jean Paul Mas and Judy Mas filed a lawsuit against Oliver H. Perry in the United States District Court, claiming federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.
  • At the close of the plaintiffs' case at trial, Perry made an oral motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that Mrs. Mas was a citizen of Louisiana, thus destroying complete diversity.
  • The district court denied Perry's motion to dismiss.
  • A jury found in favor of the Mases, and the district court entered a final judgment on the verdict.
  • Perry (appellant) appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, solely on jurisdictional grounds.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

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

Issue:

Is a person who resides in a state solely for educational purposes, without the intention of remaining there indefinitely, considered a domiciliary of that state for the purpose of establishing federal diversity jurisdiction?


Opinions:

Majority - Ainsworth, Circuit Judge

No. For diversity jurisdiction purposes, citizenship means domicile, and a person does not establish a new domicile simply by residing in a state for educational purposes without an intent to remain there indefinitely. To effect a change of domicile, a person must both take up residence in a different state and form the intention to remain there. Because Mrs. Mas was in Louisiana only as a student and lacked the requisite intent to remain, she did not acquire a Louisiana domicile. Her prior domicile in Mississippi continued until she established a new one. Therefore, there was complete diversity between Mrs. Mas (a citizen of Mississippi) and Perry (a citizen of Louisiana), and alienage jurisdiction existed for Mr. Mas (a citizen of France) against Perry. The court also held that the amount in controversy is determined by the plaintiff's good faith claim, and a verdict for less than the jurisdictional amount does not divest the court of jurisdiction unless it appears to a legal certainty that the claim was never for the requisite amount.



Analysis:

This case is a foundational decision in Civil Procedure for its clear articulation of the difference between residence and domicile for diversity jurisdiction. It establishes that a person's domicile persists until a new one is affirmatively established, preventing transient individuals like students from losing their state citizenship or inadvertently acquiring a new one. This ensures that the basis for diversity jurisdiction remains stable and is not subject to temporary changes in living arrangements. The ruling reinforces the principle that intent is a crucial element for establishing domicile, protecting access to federal courts for individuals living away from their permanent homes.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Mas v. Perry (1974)

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