Harrison v. Harrison
58 Va. App. 90
| Va. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Husband and wife married in 2000; two daughters born 2001 and 2005.
- They lived in Belgium (2004–2009) due to husband’s work, with wife remaining in Belgium during marital difficulties.
- Husband relocated to Virginia in August 2008; wife and children moved briefly between Belgium and Virginia for custody and support.
- In July 2009, wife filed for divorce in Belgium; husband filed for divorce and emergency custody in Fairfax County, Virginia.
- Virginia court initially declined jurisdiction under Belgium home-state rule; wife moved to Belgium with children after service.
- In April 2010, trial court held it lacked in personam jurisdiction over wife under Code § 20-146.8 and § 8.01-328.1(A)(9); trial court also sustained relevance objection to wife’s extramarital relationship evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had in personam jurisdiction over wife under Code § 20-146.8 | Harrison | Harrison | No in personam jurisdiction under § 20-146.8 |
| Whether Code § 8.01-328.1(A)(9) confers in personam jurisdiction based on matrimonial domicile | Harrison | Harrison | No in personam jurisdiction; no actual or constructive domicile in Virginia |
| Whether a constructive matrimonial domicile exists in Virginia | Harrison | Harrison | Rejected; no constructive domicile recognized |
| Whether the trial court properly weighed credibility and evidence on domicile | Harrison | Harrison | Trial court credibility weighing upheld; wife’s testimony preferred |
| Admission of testimony regarding wife's extramarital relationship | Harrison | Harrison | Relevance objection sustained; testimony excluded |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Malak, 182 Cal.App.3d 1018 (Cal. App. 1986) (federal and state custody context influencing jurisdiction)
- Phillips v. Commonwealth, 56 Va.App. 526 (Va. App. 2010) (statutory interpretation using past tense in defining terms)
- Purce v. Patterson, 275 Va. 190 (1998) (statutory interpretation on plain meaning)
- Blackson v. Blackson, 40 Va.App. 507 (Va. App. 2003) (domicile and intention to remain; deference to fact-finder)
- Talley v. Commonwealth, 127 Va. 516 (Va. 1920) (definition and test for domicile; residence plus intent)
- State-Planters Bank & Trust Co. v. Commonwealth, 174 Va. 289 (Va. 1940) (intent to remain inferred from conduct; domicile evidence)
- Guilfoil v. Hayes, 169 Va. 548 (Va. 1939) (importance of intent versus declarations)
- Fox v. Commonwealth, 207 Va. 701 (Va. 1967) (intent to remain and domicile analysis)
- Evans-Smith v. Commonwealth, 5 Va.App. 188 (Va. App. 1987) (evidence admissibility governed by relevance and materiality)