Gosbee v. Gosbee
2015 Vt. 82
Vt.2015Background
- Dain Gosbee (husband) filed for divorce in Vermont on Nov 1, 2013 while his wife Christina and their minor child were living in Germany; wife had filed for divorce in Germany earlier that month but had not served husband.
- The couple moved from Vermont to Germany in 2010 intending to work, travel, and save money with a plan to return to the U.S.; they never obtained German citizenship or permanent work visas.
- The family lived in Germany for about 3½–4 years; during that time the child attended preschool and received medical/dental care in Germany.
- Husband surrendered his Vermont license in 2011 and obtained a Georgia driver’s license; wife retained a Vermont license. Husband returned to Vermont Oct 7, 2013, applied for a Vermont license Oct 9, and used a Georgia mailing address for correspondence.
- Trial court found the parties’ relocation to Germany was an indefinite (not temporary) change of residence, concluded husband was not domiciled in Vermont for the six months prior to filing, dismissed the Vermont divorce complaint for failure to meet the 6‑month residency statute, and declined to reach UCCJEA child‑jurisdiction issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gosbee) | Defendant's Argument (Gosbee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Vermont’s 6‑month residency requirement (15 V.S.A. § 592(a)) was met | The parties remained domiciled in Vermont during their Germany stay; absence was temporary and they intended to return to Vermont | The family relocated to Germany indefinitely, so Vermont domicile was abandoned | Court held residency not satisfied; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether relocation to Germany was a temporary absence vs. change of domicile | Relied on lack of intent to make Germany permanent and intent to return to Vermont someday | Evidence showed acts (Georgia license, Germany bank, work) and indefinite relocation defeating Vermont domicile | Court held “indefinite” relocation sufficient to change domicile despite not being "permanent" |
| Whether husband’s short return to Vermont before filing could satisfy six‑month rule | Three weeks’ presence after return cannot satisfy statutory six‑month residency if domicile was lost while abroad | Trial court: domicile at time of filing controls; post‑return short presence insufficient | Court affirmed that brief return did not cure prior loss of domicile |
| Whether UCCJEA or PKPA implications require Vermont be treated as child’s home state | Husband argued Vermont must be child’s home state and PKPA limits recognizing foreign home states | Trial court determined Vermont was not child’s home state and UCCJEA governed; court did not fully address PKPA conflict because divorce dismissed on residency | Appellate court did not reach UCCJEA/PKPA issues because dismissal on residency was dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Conley v. Crisafulli, 188 Vt. 11, 999 A.2d 677 (Vt. 2010) (residency for divorce equates to domicile; standard for domicile change)
- Duval v. Duval, 149 Vt. 506, 546 A.2d 1357 (Vt. 1988) (to change domicile requires physical relocation plus intention to remain indefinitely)
- Shute v. Shute, 158 Vt. 242, 607 A.2d 890 (Vt. 1992) (overruling on other grounds referenced in domicile analysis)
- Holmes v. Sopuch, 639 F.2d 431 (8th Cir. 1981) (indefinite intent requirement for domicile change)
- Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Craddock, 338 A.2d 363 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1975) (moving with present intent to remain indefinitely can establish new domicile)
- Abulqasim v. Mahmoud, 49 A.3d 828 (D.C. 2012) (intent for domicile defined as intent to remain for indefinite future, not necessarily permanent)
- Gilwee v. Town of Barre, 138 Vt. 109, 412 A.2d 300 (Vt. 1980) (appellate court may affirm on any legal ground supporting the result)