Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

KRASNOV v. DINAN

October 18, 1971

George S. KRASNOV and The Merchants National Bank of Allentown, Administrators of the Estate of Sol Weissman, Deceased, and Beatrice Weissman, Deceased
v.
Brendan DINAN


Harold K. Wood, District Judge.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: WOOD

HAROLD K. WOOD, District Judge.

 Defendant has moved to dismiss plaintiffs' cause of action for lack of diversity of citizenship. *fn1" The present action, instituted under the Wrongful Death and Survival statutes, arises from an automobile accident on August 30, 1969 which resulted in the deaths of plaintiffs' decedents. Plaintiffs instituted suit in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. This action, having been transferred to Lehigh County, is presently awaiting trial. On March 25 of this year plaintiffs deposed defendant and concluded that he was a citizen of the State of Connecticut. Thereafter they brought the present action, alleging diversity of citizenship.

 It is uncontested that plaintiffs are citizens of Pennsylvania and that the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000.00. The crucial issue is whether defendant is, as plaintiffs claim, a citizen of Connecticut or, as he contends, a citizen of Pennsylvania. If he is the latter, the action must be dismissed for lack of diversity of citizenship.

 Defendant, Brother Brendan Dinan, is a member of a semi-monastic order which can assign him to teach wherever it determines that his services are needed. From January, 1960, to January, 1962, he taught in Brooklyn, New York. Thereafter he was transferred to Connecticut where he remained until August, 1968. At that time he was reassigned to Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and he continues to live and teach there.

 The terms "citizenship" and "domicile" are synonymous. Unanue v. Caribbean Canneries, Inc., 323 F. Supp. 63 (D.C. Del. 1971). Consequently we now consider whether defendant was, on March 26, 1971, when this suit was instituted, a domiciliary of Pennsylvania, i.e.: whether Pennsylvania had become his domicile of choice.

 To establish a domicile of choice, two elements must be present: physical presence in the domicile claimed and an intention by the person to make the domicile his home. Korn v. Korn, 398 F.2d 689 (3rd Cir. 1968). Clearly defendant satisfies the physical presence requirement, having lived in Pennsylvania continuously since August, 1968. The record further establishes his intention to make Pennsylvania his home. At his June 30 deposition, defendant testified as follows:

 
"Q: Now, while you were residing in Brooklyn as you have just described a minute ago, where did you intend to make your home?
 
"A: Brooklyn.
 
"Q: Now, why did you intend to make your home in Brooklyn at the time you were stationed there?
 
"A: Well, it was my home. I worked there. This is our thinking and you are part of the community, the Congregation is. When you go to an area -- when you are assigned to an area, this is your home and you become a native.
 
* * *
 
"Q: And where did you intend to make your home upon assignment ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.