By Zach Gorchow
Gongwer News Service
The domicile of a child whose parents are divorced should be determined through analyzing a variety of factors, not by simply evaluating family court custody order, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in overturning a prior precedent.
The ruling has significant ramifications for situations where a child of divorce is injured in a traffic crash and determining which parents' auto insurance provides coverage for their injuries.
In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in Grange Insurance Company of Michigan v. Edward Lawrence that a child can only be domiciled with one parent and critically that the judgment of divorce and custody order "conclusively established" the child's domicile.
Ruling unanimously Wednesday in Frownfelter v. Esurance Property & Casualty Insurance Company (SC Docket Nos. 168356 and 168357), the court overturned the Grange precedent on how to determine the child's domicile.
In the new case, 15-year-old McKenna Frownfelter was severely injured in a traffic crash on the way to school from her father's house. McKenna's mother and father had joint physical custody with a custody order providing for a 50/50 living arrangement. However, McKenna spent 75% of the time with her mother and 25% of her time with her father.
In trying to determine the proper insurer, the Oakland Circuit Court held that because of the 50/50 custody order, the fact that McKenna stayed at her father's house the night before meant she was domiciled with her father for insurance purposes. The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling.
Justice Brian Zahra, in the court's majority opinion, wrote Grange was wrong. Zahra dissented in the 2013 Grange case in how to determine domicile.
"We reject the Grange majority's overly simplistic holding that a custody order is capable of dispositively setting a child's domicile by operation of law," Zahra wrote.
"Instead, a custody order creates the custodial environment from which domicile can be established. Custodial environment and domicile are distinct concepts, and the Child Custody Act4 nowhere purports to establish domicile for purposes of the no-fault act. The Grange domicile rule unreasonably posits that every custody order functions to conclusively establish the legal domicile of a given child under the no fault act, regardless of any ambiguities in the custody order or practical changes to the needs and practices of the child and divorced parents that naturally develop over time. The rule also unduly impinges on the ability of an insurer to accurately assess its risks when entering into insurance agreements."
Further, Zahra wrote that the Grange rule is "particularly ill-suited" for situations with a custody order providing for a 50/50 division of physical custody.
Determining the domicile of a child with two legal residences requires a review of all facts and circumstances, he wrote.
"Where the facts of the child's living arrangements are so clearly inconsistent with the family court's order that it is reasonable to conclude that the child's parents have reached an agreement regarding the child's domicile that differs from the domicile set forth in the custody order, the family court's order should not be considered representative of the child's domicile," he wrote. "In all cases, courts should make domicile determinations in light of the actual facts of the custodial situation."
The case was remanded to the Oakland Circuit Court for further proceedings. The opinion was signed by Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh, Justice Richard Bernstein, Justice Elizabeth Welch, Justice Kyra Harris Bolden and Justice Noah Hood.
Justice Kimberly Thomas, in a concurring opinion, said she agreed with the decision but wanted to highlight the implications of the ruling for family courts.
Child custody in divorce cases encompasses a variety of decisions, including healthcare coverage, but not bodily injury coverage from auto insurance, Thomas said.
"Our family courts are not writing their orders with future no-fault implications in mind," she said. "Litigants in our family courts are focused on the many required aspects of a legal divorce, often without the guidance of counsel. Yet, as the case before the court illustrates, choices made in the family court during or after a divorce involving minor children may have a significant impact years later in a completely different area of law. Today's decision, which provides a consistent determination regarding domicile across all cases, helps mitigate, but does not eliminate, that impact."
Gongwer News Service
The domicile of a child whose parents are divorced should be determined through analyzing a variety of factors, not by simply evaluating family court custody order, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in overturning a prior precedent.
The ruling has significant ramifications for situations where a child of divorce is injured in a traffic crash and determining which parents' auto insurance provides coverage for their injuries.
In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in Grange Insurance Company of Michigan v. Edward Lawrence that a child can only be domiciled with one parent and critically that the judgment of divorce and custody order "conclusively established" the child's domicile.
Ruling unanimously Wednesday in Frownfelter v. Esurance Property & Casualty Insurance Company (SC Docket Nos. 168356 and 168357), the court overturned the Grange precedent on how to determine the child's domicile.
In the new case, 15-year-old McKenna Frownfelter was severely injured in a traffic crash on the way to school from her father's house. McKenna's mother and father had joint physical custody with a custody order providing for a 50/50 living arrangement. However, McKenna spent 75% of the time with her mother and 25% of her time with her father.
In trying to determine the proper insurer, the Oakland Circuit Court held that because of the 50/50 custody order, the fact that McKenna stayed at her father's house the night before meant she was domiciled with her father for insurance purposes. The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling.
Justice Brian Zahra, in the court's majority opinion, wrote Grange was wrong. Zahra dissented in the 2013 Grange case in how to determine domicile.
"We reject the Grange majority's overly simplistic holding that a custody order is capable of dispositively setting a child's domicile by operation of law," Zahra wrote.
"Instead, a custody order creates the custodial environment from which domicile can be established. Custodial environment and domicile are distinct concepts, and the Child Custody Act4 nowhere purports to establish domicile for purposes of the no-fault act. The Grange domicile rule unreasonably posits that every custody order functions to conclusively establish the legal domicile of a given child under the no fault act, regardless of any ambiguities in the custody order or practical changes to the needs and practices of the child and divorced parents that naturally develop over time. The rule also unduly impinges on the ability of an insurer to accurately assess its risks when entering into insurance agreements."
Further, Zahra wrote that the Grange rule is "particularly ill-suited" for situations with a custody order providing for a 50/50 division of physical custody.
Determining the domicile of a child with two legal residences requires a review of all facts and circumstances, he wrote.
"Where the facts of the child's living arrangements are so clearly inconsistent with the family court's order that it is reasonable to conclude that the child's parents have reached an agreement regarding the child's domicile that differs from the domicile set forth in the custody order, the family court's order should not be considered representative of the child's domicile," he wrote. "In all cases, courts should make domicile determinations in light of the actual facts of the custodial situation."
The case was remanded to the Oakland Circuit Court for further proceedings. The opinion was signed by Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh, Justice Richard Bernstein, Justice Elizabeth Welch, Justice Kyra Harris Bolden and Justice Noah Hood.
Justice Kimberly Thomas, in a concurring opinion, said she agreed with the decision but wanted to highlight the implications of the ruling for family courts.
Child custody in divorce cases encompasses a variety of decisions, including healthcare coverage, but not bodily injury coverage from auto insurance, Thomas said.
"Our family courts are not writing their orders with future no-fault implications in mind," she said. "Litigants in our family courts are focused on the many required aspects of a legal divorce, often without the guidance of counsel. Yet, as the case before the court illustrates, choices made in the family court during or after a divorce involving minor children may have a significant impact years later in a completely different area of law. Today's decision, which provides a consistent determination regarding domicile across all cases, helps mitigate, but does not eliminate, that impact."
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
