View Single Post
Old 11-19-2020, 05:03 PM   #46
jetskier
Senior Member
 
jetskier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North Reading, MA and South Down Shores
Posts: 855
Thanks: 58
Thanked 183 Times in 114 Posts
Post I agree

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMI Guy View Post
The facts as we both understand them do not support your conclusion regarding Hosmer's domicile.

The brief statute you have cited doesn't address permanent versus temporary living situations because the word domicile does that all by itself. That word has a specific legal meaning, especially here where it is used in statutory language. It seems that you are making the same mistake as Dawn Johnson, the Laconia School Board member who is quoted in the newspaper article: "If that’s where he rests his head, that’s his domicile..." By this logic, if I go to Disney World with my family for a week long vacation, our domicile shifts to Orlando while we are there. That's not how it works, and that's why I suggested that you look in New Hampshire statutes for a definition of the word domicile as it applies to Hosmer's situation.

From Black's Law Dictionary:
Domicile
1. The place at which a person is physically present and that person regards as home; a person's true, fixed, principal, and permanent home, to which that person intends to return and remain even though currently residing elsewhere. 2. The residence of a person or corporation for legal purposes.

Wikipedia:
Domicile (law)
In law, domicile is the status or attribution of being a lawful permanent resident in a particular jurisdiction. A person can remain domiciled in a jurisdiction even after they have left it, if they have maintained sufficient links with that jurisdiction or have not displayed an intention to leave permanently (i.e. if that person has moved to a different state but has not yet formed an intention to remain there indefinitely).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domicile_(law)

So no, Gilford was/is not Hosmer's domicile, as long as he has an intent to return to Laconia and maintain the city as the location of his permanent residence. Intent can be discerned by looking at and evaluating a number of different things in combination, including a person's oral and written statements, where a person is registered to vote, the address being used on legal documents such as a vehicle registration and a drivers license, and where a person owns real property and pays taxes. Living in Gilford for a few months while he is between houses in Laconia does not make Gilford Hosmer's domicile.
OK...looked at the legal definition too and domicile is defined differently than residence. What Hosmer should have done is publicly state that it was his intent to keep his domicile in Laconia and he would be taking temporary residence outside of the city. That would have avoided the dust up.

So, I agree that there is no legal issue, just bad form and bad optics.

Jetskier
jetskier is offline   Reply With Quote