In Re Marriage of Hattis

—These two cases consolidated on appeal 1 raise the propriety of California jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in an action to partition a military pension and in a separate action to recognize, establish arrearages on and modify a sister state judgment awarding child support. Since personal jurisdiction analysis required under 10 United States Code section 1408 (c)(4) for the partition of the pension differs from the constitutional “minimum contacts” approach applicable to the action on the child support order, we reach different results under the two tests. For reasons set forth below, we will issue a writ of mandate 2 to prevent the trial court from exercising jurisdiction in the pension action. However, the writ is denied as to the child support case and the court may properly proceed to decide those issues.

Factual and Procedural Background

Larry Phillip Hattis (Larry) and Nancy Marie Hattis (Nancy) were married in San Diego on June 28, 1969. Larry, an employee of the United States Navy, was transferred to Michigan shortly thereafter where their first child was bom. Larry and Nancy returned to San Diego by way of military assignment in 1971. A second child…

Although I concur with the result and reasoning in part II of the majority’s opinion, I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s disposition of Nancy’s partition action. I believe that, on this record, Nancy may be able to establish that Larry was domiciled in California at .the time the partition action was filed.

The law controlling determination of a person’s domicile is well settled. (Hawes v. Club Ecuestre El Comandante (1st Cir. 1979) 598 F.2d 698, 701 .) As Justice Holmes explained, “[t]he very meaning of domicil is the technically pre-eminent headquarters that every person is compelled to have in order that certain rights and duties that have been attached to it by the law *1176 may be determined.” (Williamson v. Osenton (1914) 232 U.S. 619, 625 [ 58 L.Ed. 758, 761 , 34 S.Ct. 442, 443 ].) Thus while a person may, at any given time, have more than one residence, he or she may have only one domicile at a time. (Hawes v. Club Ecuestre El Comandante, supra, 598 F.2d at p. 701 ; Rest.2d, Conflict of Laws (1971) § 19.) In order to establish a new domicile, a person must show . . (1) physical presence at the new location with (2) an intention to remain there indefinitely. .…

WIENER, Acting P.J.

These two cases consolidated on appeal [1] raise the propriety of California jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in an action to partition a military pension and in a separate action to recognize, establish arrearages on and modify a sister state judgment awarding child support. Since personal jurisdiction analysis required under 10 United States Code section 1408 (c)(4) for the partition of the pension differs from the constitutional "minimum contacts" approach applicable to the action on the child support order, we reach different results under the two tests. (1) (See fn. 2.) For reasons set forth below, we will issue a writ of mandate [2] to prevent the trial court from exercising jurisdiction in the pension action. However, the writ is denied as to the child support case and the court may properly proceed to decide those issues.

Larry Phillip Hattis (Larry) and Nancy Marie Hattis (Nancy) were married in San Diego on June 28, 1969. Larry, an employee of the United States Navy, was transferred to Michigan shortly thereafter where their first child was born. Larry and Nancy returned to San Diego by way of military assignment in 1971. A second…