{
  "id": 8525594,
  "name": "JOSEPH J. ANDRIS, III v. LYNDA B. ANDRIS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Andris v. Andris",
  "decision_date": "1983-12-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 8218DC1273",
  "first_page": "688",
  "last_page": "692",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "65 N.C. App. 688"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "155 S.E. 2d 290",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "270 N.C. 736",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8570603
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/270/0736-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 S.E. 2d 29",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1961,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "33"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "253 N.C. 704",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626885
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1961,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "709"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/253/0704-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "29 S.E. 2d 744",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1944,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "224 N.C. 183",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8597232
      ],
      "year": 1944,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/224/0183-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "317 U.S. 287",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        303872
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1942,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/317/0287-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 370,
    "char_count": 7906,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.8,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20555561347399018
    },
    "sha256": "b306ad18d50b1dde8e5417274cf81ec4b7b371782b66bbcfb0ef8b8e47ffbce5",
    "simhash": "1:83ed6bfbd74efe5a",
    "word_count": 1306
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:11:09.312138+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Hedrick and Becton concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "JOSEPH J. ANDRIS, III v. LYNDA B. ANDRIS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nIn an action for a divorce in this state, either the plaintiff or defendant must have been \u201ca resident of the State of North Carolina for at least six months next preceding the filing of the complaint. . . .\u201d G.S. 50-8. The word \u201cresident\u201d has been interpreted to mean the equivalent of \u201cdomicile.\u201d Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 63 S.Ct. 207, 87 L.Ed. 279 (1942). See Lee, North Carolina Family Law \u00a7 42 (1979). In order to establish a domicile, a party must make a showing of both actual residence in the new locality and the intent to remain there permanently. State v. Williams, 224 N.C. 183, 29 S.E. 2d 744 (1944).\nIn the case at bar, defendant contends that plaintiff has failed to establish a North Carolina domicile in that, although he may have the requisite intent, he has not proven actual residence in this state. We find that the trial court properly found that plaintiff is domiciled in North Carolina.\nThe evidence introduced at trial showed that: 1) plaintiff changed his voter registration from Pennsylvania to Guilford County, 2) plaintiff filed a North Carolina income tax return for the year 1981, 3) plaintiff changed his permanent address with the Navy to his father\u2019s address in Greensboro as of 1 August 1981, 4) plaintiff opened a bank account in Greensboro in August of 1981 and has maintained it since that time, 5) plaintiff has changed the registration of his motor vehicle from Pennsylvania to North Carolina and has paid North Carolina property taxes, 6) plaintiff has resided at his parent\u2019s house whenever on leave from the Navy, and 7) plaintiff has severed all ties with the State of Pennsylvania. In short, plaintiff has done everything possible to establish a residence in North Carolina. The transient nature of his career with the United States Navy prohibits him from doing anything further.\nDefendant cites the case of Martin v. Martin, 253 N.C. 704, 118 S.E. 2d 29 (1961), to support her contention that plaintiff has not established a residence in North Carolina. In that case the court found that evidence that a United States Army officer stationed in North Carolina, who had registered his car and paid income tax in North Carolina and had obtained a North Carolina driver\u2019s license, was not conclusive on the question of legal residence, but was sufficient to be submitted to the jury. In addition, the court held that, in determining domicile for divorce actions, \u201cmere presence is insufficient.\u201d 253 N.C. at 709, 118 S.E. 2d at 33.\nThe court\u2019s holding in Martin does not preclude a finding that the trial court properly concluded that plaintiff was domiciled in North Carolina. Plaintiff has established more than mere presence in this state. A finding that he failed to meet North Carolina residency requirements would, in effect, penalize plaintiff for having chosen a military career, since he has done everything possible to make this state his actual residence. We hold that the trial judge properly found that plaintiff is domiciled in North Carolina.\nDefendant also contends that the trial court erred in concluding that it had jurisdiction over her person when there had been no finding that she had any contact with North Carolina. We agree that the court improperly found jurisdiction over defendant, but find that this error was insignificant in that G.S. 50-6 allows a divorce proceeding \u201con the application of either party, if and when the husband and wife have lived separate and apart for one year, and the plaintiff or defendant in the suit for divorce has resided in the State for a period of six months.\u201d (Emphasis added.) See Fleek v. Fleek, 270 N.C. 736, 155 S.E. 2d 290 (1967).\nWe hold that the order of the trial court denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss is\nAffirmed.\nJudges Hedrick and Becton concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Greeson & Turner, by Joseph E. Turner, for defendant-appellant",
      "McNairy, Clifford & Clendenin, by Locke T. Clifford, for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOSEPH J. ANDRIS, III v. LYNDA B. ANDRIS\nNo. 8218DC1273\n(Filed 20 December 1983)\n1. Domicile \u00a7 1\u2014 showing required\nIn order to establish a domicile, a party must make a showing of both actual residence in the new locality and the intent to remain there permanently.\n2. Divorce and Alimony \u00a7 1.1\u2014 action for divorce \u2014sufficient evidence of domicile\nThe trial court in a divorce action properly found that plaintiff, a member of the United States Navy, is domiciled in North Carolina, although plaintiff does not own any real estate in North Carolina and does not maintain a separate residence in this State apart from that of his father, where the evidence showed that plaintiff changed his permanent address with the Navy to his father\u2019s address in Greensboro as of 1 August 1981; plaintiff changed his voter registration from Pennsylvania to Guilford County; plaintiff filed a North Carolina income tax return for the year 1981; plaintiff opened a bank account in Greensboro in August 1981 and has maintained it since that time; plaintiff has resided at his father\u2019s house whenever on leave from the Navy; plaintiff has changed the registration of his motor vehicle from Pennsylvania to North Carolina and has paid North Carolina property taxes; and plaintiff has severed all ties with the State of Pennsylvania.\n3. Divorce and Alimony \u00a7 1.1\u2014 divorce action \u2014 jurisdiction over defendant \u2014erroneous finding of no significance\nAlthough the trial court erred in concluding it had jurisdiction over defendant\u2019s person when there had been no finding that she had any contacts with North Carolina, such error was harmless since G.S. 50-6 permits a divorce action based on a year\u2019s separation to be maintained in this State when either the husband or the wife has resided in the State for a period of six months; and the court found that plaintiff husband had resided in this State for the required time.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Cecil, Judge. Judgment entered 17 September 1982 in District Court, GUILFORD County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 25 October 1983.\nDefendant appeals from the trial court\u2019s order denying her motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the person and subject matter. Plaintiff, a medical doctor serving in the United States Navy, filed for absolute divorce on 16 March 1982 in Guilford County on the grounds of continuous separation for more than one year. Before beginning active duty in 1980, he had lived in Pennsylvania for approximately 29 years. Plaintiff and defendant were married on 2 October 1975 in Pennsylvania and continued to live there until their separation in October of 1979. Defendant continues to live in Pennsylvania and has never resided in North Carolina.\nPlaintiffs father and stepmother have lived in North Carolina since May of 1980. In August of 1981, plaintiff informed the Navy that he desired to have his father\u2019s address in Greensboro as his permanent address. During that same month, plaintiff obtained a North Carolina driver\u2019s license, registered a motorcycle with the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles, registered to vote in Guilford County, and opened a bank account in Greensboro. Plaintiff has also filed a North Carolina income tax return since that time. Plaintiff does not own any real estate in North Carolina and does not maintain a separate residence in North Carolina, apart from that of his father. However, plaintiff comes to his father\u2019s home whenever he is granted leave from the Navy.\nDefendant moved to dismiss plaintiffs complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Defendant contends, first, that plaintiff has failed to maintain a residence in North Carolina for at least six months prior to filing for a divorce as is required by G.S. 50-8 and, second, that there are insufficient minimum contacts between she and the State of North Carolina for the court to have properly obtained jurisdiction over her person. From the trial court\u2019s order denying that motion, defendant appeals.\nGreeson & Turner, by Joseph E. Turner, for defendant-appellant\nMcNairy, Clifford & Clendenin, by Locke T. Clifford, for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0688-01",
  "first_page_order": 720,
  "last_page_order": 724
}