{ "id": 1475881, "name": "O'Keefe v. O'Keefe", "name_abbreviation": "O'Keefe v. O'Keefe", "decision_date": "1946-02-25", "docket_number": "4-7837", "first_page": "837", "last_page": "841", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "209 Ark. 837" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "192 S.W.2d 556" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "90 Pac. 2d 329", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "32 Cal. App. 2d 611", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 6042228 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal-app-2d/32/0611-01" ] }, { "cite": "235 S. W. 419", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "151 Ark. 150", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1366125 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/151/0150-01" ] }, { "cite": "182 S. W. 897", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "122 Ark. 276", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1558147 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/122/0276-01" ] }, { "cite": "136 S. W. 987", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "99 Ark. 94", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1314396 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/99/0094-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 S. W. 1098", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "54 Ark. 20", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1320432 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/54/0020-01" ] }, { "cite": "138 Pac. 2d 972", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "case_ids": [ 4535329 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/idaho/65/0012-01" ] }, { "cite": "163 S. W. 2d 820", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "291 Ky. 363", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ky.", "case_ids": [ 5327942 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ky/291/0363-01" ] }, { "cite": "151 Fla. 587", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Fla.", "case_ids": [ 1970830 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/fla/151/0587-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 A. L. R. 1462", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "148 A. L. R. 1413", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "206 Ark. 1094", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1485115 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/206/1094-01" ] }, { "cite": "205 Ark. 650", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1488297 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/205/0650-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 430, "char_count": 6569, "ocr_confidence": 0.497, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.1194910448354688e-07, "percentile": 0.7643654128097815 }, "sha256": "6046ec4c733d27ee311a57e752253a73970e1c7829de2a7d6ed5990ad5355d08", "simhash": "1:9f8582a5e5057592", "word_count": 1159 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:58:59.179776+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "O\u2019Keefe v. O\u2019Keefe." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MoFaddin, J.\nThe question at issue in this appeal is whether appellant, Frank O\u2019Keefe, proved a legal residence in the State of Arkansas.\nOn February 8, 1945, Frank O\u2019Keefe filed this suit for divorce against Pearl O\u2019Keefe; and the complaint contained legally sufficient allegations. The defendant was constructively summoned, but made no appearance. On June 27, 1945, evidence was heard in open court. Frank O\u2019Keefe testified-that > the parties were married and separated in Pennsylvania; that he was living in Pennsylvania when he joined the armed forces of the United States; that, at the time of testifying, he was a private first class in the U. S. Marine Corps, and stationed at the Marine camp near Newport; that his duties were the maintenance of telephone lines at tlie Newport Air Base; that he was not required to sleep at the base, and that he maintained a room elsewhere. The witness answered the court\u2019s questions as follows: \u201cQ.You are a member of the U. S. Army? A. The Marine Corps, sir. Q. Did you select Jackson equnty for your residence and place to train,'or were you sent here? A. Well, sir, I was sent here, but after I got here I saw what kind of country it is, and I decided that after the war is over, if I am still here, I will just stay, and if I have been moved I will come back here and make my home and go into the cattle business. I intend to make this my permanent residence. \u2019 \u2019\nThe only attempted corroboration of residence was the testimony of the tax assessor of Jackson county, who stated that just a few days prior to June 27, 1945, the date of the hearing, Frank O\u2019Keefe had assessed a poll tax in Jackson county. The court observed that this occurred after the filing of the. suit. Without any other evidence being offered on the question of the residence of the plaintiff, the trial court ruled that the plaintiff had not proved a legal residence in Arkansas. From that decree there is this appeal. We affirm the chancery court. Several points present themselves.\nI. Residence of Person in the Armed Forces. We have several recent cases on the question of residence of one in the armed forces. Some of these cases are: Kennedy v. Kennedy, 205 Ark. 650, 169 S. W. 2d 876, and Mohr v. Mohr, 206 Ark. 1094, 178 S. W. 2d 502. There is an exhaustive annotation on \u201cDomicile or Residence of Person in the Armed Forces\u201d in 148 A. L. R. 1413. This annotation is supplemented in 157 A. L. R. 1462, where the intervening supplementary.annotations are listed. In Mohr v. Mohr, supra, we said: \u201cThere are cases which hold that a person in the service of the United States may acquire residence in a state where he is in service sufficiently to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts of that state in divorce matters. Some of the more recent of such cases are Gipson v. Gipson, 151 Fla. 587, 10 So. 2d 82; St. John v. St. John, 291 Ky. 363, 163 S. W. 2d 820; Hawkins v. Winstead, (Idaho) 138 Pac. 2d 972. But in each of these cases there was something more than mere presence at a military post in the state. Without lengthening this opinion to analyze the holdings of other courts we hold that there must be overt acts sufficient to demonstrate a real and bona fide intent to acquire resi-' dence here before the State of Arkansas \u2014 as a silent third party to every divorce suit here \u2014 will allow its courts to be used as the haven of the transient and dissatisfied spouse.\u201d\nIt is legally possible for a person in the armed forces to acquire a residence in Arkansas, but it is a question of fact in each case.\nII. Proof of Residence Is Required. But, even giving tlie plaintiff\u2019s testimony, as above referred to, its full force and effect, still tbe plaintiff did not sufficiently prove a legal residence in Arkansas for tbe time required under our statute. Section 4386 of Pope\u2019s Digest says, in part: \u2018 \u2018 Tbe plaintiff, to obtain a divorce, must prove, . . . in addition to a legal cause of divorce: . . . a residence in tbe state .... for two months next before the commencement of the action.\u201d The evidence in this case fails to show when the plaintiff came to Arkansas, so, even under his own testimony, he did not prove residence as required by the statute, supra.\nIII. Proof of Residence Must Be Corroborated, the Same as Every Other Fact in a Divorce Case. Section 4386, Pope\u2019s Digest, as quoted, supra, says that residence must be proved \u201cin addition to a legal cause of divorce.\u201d Section 4385, Pope\u2019s Digest, says: \u201cThe statements of the complaint for a divorce shall not be taken as true because of the defendant\u2019s failure to answer, . . .\u201d\nIn numerous cases, we have discussed the necessity of corroborative evidence in divorce actions. Some of these cases are: Scarborough v. Scarborough, 54 Ark. 20, 14 S. W. 1098; Sisk v. Sisk, 99 Ark. 94, 136 S. W. 987; Johnson v. Johnson, 122 Ark. 276, 182 S. W. 897; Pryor v. Pryor, 151 Ark. 150, 235 S. W. 419. In 19 C. J. 136, as well as in 27 C. J. S., Divorce, \u00a7 138, 736, the rule is stated in regard to proof of residence of plaintiff in a divorce action: \u201c. . . as a rule the testimony of complainant, if controverted, will not be accepted as sufficient to establish residence, until it is corroborated. \u2019 \u2019 By force of \u00a7\u00a7 4385-6 of Pope\u2019s Digest, all essential facts are considered as controverted in divorce actions, and it is therefore clear that proof of residence must be corroborated the same as any other essential fact.\nIn the case at bar there was no corroboration of plaintiff\u2019s claim of residence. The only proffered corroboration was the testimony of the tax assessor, which related to a poll tax assessment made a few days before the trial. Certainly, such assessment did not tend to show that plaintiff had established a bona fide residence in Arkansas sixty days before February 8, 1945, the filing date of the cause. We might adopt as our own the language used by the California court in Bragg v. Bragg, 32 Cal. App. 2d 611, 90 Pac. 2d 329, where, in discussing the necessity of corroboration of residence, the court said: \u201c. . . the testimony of the respondent as to his \u2018intentions\u2019 is without semblance of any corroboration either direct or circumstantial . . . Such proof of bona fide residence and corroboration thereof is necessary in proceedings of this nature.\u201d\nThe decree of the chancery court is, therefore, affirmed, but without prejudice to the plaintiff\u2019s right to file a new suit, if and when he establishes bona fide residence in Arkansas.", "type": "majority", "author": "MoFaddin, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "II. S. Grant, for appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "O\u2019Keefe v. O\u2019Keefe.\n4-7837\n192 S. W. 2d 556\nOpinion delivered February 25, 1946.\nII. S. Grant, for appellant." }, "file_name": "0837-01", "first_page_order": 853, "last_page_order": 857 }