McEachron v. Glans
1997 WL 697806, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19232, 983 F. Supp. 330 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish a change of domicile for an incompetent person for the purpose of diversity jurisdiction, the party asserting the change must prove by clear and convincing evidence that, at the time the complaint is filed, the incompetent was physically present in the new state with a definite intent to remain there indefinitely. A temporary relocation for short-term medical care, where a permanent long-term residence has not yet been determined, is insufficient to establish the requisite intent to change domicile.
Facts:
- On March 28, 1996, a vehicle driven by Douglas H. McEachron, a domiciliary of New York, was struck by a Saratoga County Sheriff’s Department vehicle.
- The collision caused McEachron to suffer severe head trauma, leaving him in a comatose and legally incompetent state.
- After initial treatment in New York, McEachron's family transferred him on July 23, 1996, to the New England Rehabilitation Hospital (NERH) in Massachusetts for a temporary period of intensive therapy.
- His son, Howard McEachron, was appointed his temporary guardian by a Massachusetts court.
- Prior to filing the lawsuit, Howard and Melinda McEachron took steps to establish residence in Massachusetts, such as obtaining driver's licenses and leasing an apartment, to be near Douglas.
- The decision on where Douglas McEachron would be placed for long-term care was dependent on his progress at NERH and had not been made when the lawsuit was filed on August 14, 1996.
Procedural Posture:
- Howard J. McEachron, as guardian for Douglas H. McEachron, filed a lawsuit against Shawn R. Gians and Saratoga County in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.
- The complaint asserted subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.
- Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), arguing that complete diversity did not exist.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing to determine the facts relevant to the motion.
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 guardian change the domicile of an incompetent person for diversity jurisdiction purposes by moving them to a new state for temporary, short-term medical care when a permanent long-term residence has not yet been determined at the time the lawsuit is filed?
Opinions:
Majority - Homer, United States Magistrate Judge
No. A guardian does not change the domicile of an incompetent person for diversity jurisdiction purposes when the move to a new state is for temporary medical care and a permanent residence has not been decided upon at the time of filing. To establish a new domicile, there must be both physical presence and an intent to remain indefinitely. While Douglas McEachron was physically present in Massachusetts and the move was in his best interest for short-term care, the plaintiffs failed to establish the intent to remain indefinitely as of August 14, 1996. The stay at NERH was explicitly temporary, and the location for his long-term care was still unknown. Because the old domicile is presumed to continue until a new one is definitively acquired, McEachron's domicile remained New York. Consequently, diversity of citizenship between the New York plaintiffs and the New York defendants did not exist when the action was commenced.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict requirement that diversity of citizenship must exist at the precise moment a complaint is filed. It clarifies that for incompetent persons, while a guardian can change their domicile if it's in their best interest, all traditional elements of the domicile test must still be met. The court's focus on the uncertainty of the long-term residence highlights that preparatory or temporary moves are insufficient to establish the 'intent to remain indefinitely,' providing a clear standard for future cases involving jurisdiction and relocated incompetent parties. This case serves as a warning that attempts to create diversity jurisdiction through temporary relocation without a finalized long-term plan will likely fail judicial scrutiny.
