Botello v. Gonzalez
2024 Ohio 3210
Ohio Ct. App.2024Background
- Yolanda Fernandez Botello filed for divorce from Saul Mendez Gonzalez in Ohio after meeting the statutory residency requirements.
- Botello provided evidence that she had lived in Ohio for at least six months prior to filing and requested a Spanish interpreter for proceedings.
- The trial court required Botello to submit documentation proving lawful immigration status as a prerequisite for establishing residency under Ohio's divorce statute (R.C. 3105.03).
- Botello’s counsel argued that immigration status was not relevant to the statutory residency requirement and declined to provide such documentation, citing controlling Ohio Supreme Court precedent.
- The trial court dismissed her divorce complaint for lack of jurisdiction, claiming that an undocumented immigrant cannot satisfy the six-month residency requirement.
- Botello appealed the dismissal, arguing the trial court improperly imposed an "immigration status" requirement not present in the statutory text.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ohio's divorce residency statute requires proof of lawful immigration status | Residency hinges on domicile and six-month presence, not immigration status | Silent/None (Appellee pro se, did not argue) | It was error for the trial court to require immigration status; only residency matters. |
| Whether the trial court could dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on absence of proof of lawful status | The statute is clear and does not authorize inquiry into immigration status | Silent/None | Dismissal was not authorized; residency determination is independent of legal status. |
| Whether the court could add requirements to R.C. 3105.03 beyond the statutory text | Only the General Assembly can alter clear statutory requirements | Silent/None | The court cannot add requirements—plain statutory language controls. |
| Sufficiency of Botello’s proffered residency evidence | Evidence of six-month residency sufficient; no further proof needed | Silent/None | The trial court was required to accept and consider residency evidence offered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. Coleman, 32 Ohio St.2d 155 (Ohio 1972) (defining residency in the context of Ohio’s divorce statute)
- Barth v. Barth, 2007-Ohio-973 (Ohio 2007) (holding statutory residency requirement is clear and not subject to interpretation)