Sixth Circuit Addresses Domicile

Sixth Circuit Addresses Domicile

      For purposes of determining whether or not diversity jurisdiction exists, the focus for natural persons is upon their state of “domicile.”  Sometimes, as there was in this case, the domicile of the plaintiff was in dispute; was it Kentucky or Tennessee?  Pitt Excavating, LLC v. Mary Lou Pitt, No. 14-5635 (6^th Cir. Feb. 25, 2015).

      Pitt Excavating, LLC, wholly-owned by John Pitt II, brought suit against Mary Lou Pitt and John Pitt III.  Pitt II was the former husband of Mary Lou (in fact they had been married and divorced three times) and the father of Pitt III.  Subsequent to the third divorce Mary Lou brought an eviction action against Pitt II, whereafter he rented an apartment in Tennessee.  As the citizenship of each member of an LLC is attributed to the entity, if Pitt II were domiciled in Tennessee then there would be diversity jurisdiction against the Kentucky domiciled defendants.  If, however, Pitt II were still domiciled in Kentucky diversity jurisdiction would be lacking.

      Looking at a number of factors, the Court found that Pitt II still remained domiciled in Kentucky.  While he had an apartment in Tennessee he did not live there full time, still sleeping in Kentucky several days a week.  While Pitt II had certain licenses from Tennessee, he held them from before the eviction and while he was domiciled in Kentucky – they did not evidence a determination to move his domicile to Tennessee.  In addition, in the action he sought to recover the Kentucky residence conveyed to Mary Lou in the most recent divorce and even listed a Kentucky address on a materialman’s lien he filed after initiating the action.

      Finding that Pitt II’s suit was a vexatious and bad faith effort to create diversity in order to set aside the divorce decree, he was ordered to pay Mary Lou’s attorney fees and costs to the tune of $22,376.24.