Mas v. Perry
Key Principles
Domicile Test: If an individual moves to a state with the intent to remain there indefinitely, they have established a new domicile that supersedes their previous domicile in another state.
Alienage Rule: Marriage does not automatically confer or remove citizenship from the parties.
Case Overview
CITATION
DECIDED ON
489 F.2d 1396 (5th Cir. 1974)
February 22, 1974
Legal Issue
Whether Judy and Jean Paul Mas established domicile the State of Louisiana for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction.
Holding
No, Judy and Jean Paul Mas did not establish domicile in the State of Louisiana and therefore qualified for diversity jurisdiction.
Aerial Photograph of LSU’s Campus | Credit:
Louisiana State University
Background
Jean Paul Mas (a citizen of France) and Judy Mas (a citizen of the state of Mississippi) were married in Jackson, Mississippi and worked together as graduate assistants at LSU in Baton Rouge. After their marriage, they rented an apartment from Oliver H. Perry (a citizen of Louisiana). In that apartment, they discovered a two-way mirror that allowed Perry to watch them without their knowledge or consent. They lived in that apartment for two years, after which they moved to Illinois while Jean Paul completed his doctorate in Philosophy.
At the time of trial, Judy and Jean Paul intended to return to Baton Rouge from Illinois after he completed the doctorate program. They did not intend to return to Mississippi and were undecided as to where they would move next or permanently settle. After being awarded $5,000 by a jury, Perry filed a motion to dismiss for lack of diversity jurisdiction, claiming that Judy and Jean Paul had not established a new domicile since doing so in Louisiana. The motion was dismissed, and Perry appealed.
Summary
Regarding Jean Paul’s citizenship, the court pointed to his French citizenship and reasoned that he remained a foreign alien for the purposes of the litigation. For Judy, the court found that she had at not surrendered her domicile in Mississippi, since at no point did Judy and Jean Paul intend to establish themselves in Louisiana for an indefinite period of time. They also cited the alienage rule to affirm the principle that Judy did not surrender any form of domicile based on her marriage to Jean Paul, a foreign citizen. The court pointed out that the couple only lived in Louisiana while working in the graduate assistant program and lacked the requisite intention to remain there that must be present to establish domicile.
The court ultimately determined that both Jean Paul and Judy Mas had not established domicile in Louisiana and were in fact the citizens of different jurisdictions (France and Mississippi, respectively). Therefore, they qualified for diversity jurisdiction under the complete diversity rule, and the decision of the lower court was affirmed.