Court Grants Wife’s Motion to Dismiss Divorce Action Where Parties Moved to Connecticut with Intention of Returning to California

by Joseph C. Maya on Mar. 28, 2024

Divorce & Family Law 

Summary: Before filing for divorce in Connecticut, prospective litigants must satisfy certain statutory jurisdictional criteria.  This often becomes an issue where parties were married in Connecticut, but one spouse (or both) subsequently moved to another state.  As illustrated by a decision rendered in the Superior Court of Stamford, this type of situation could impact a court’s ability to hear the case.

In this particular matter, the parties were married in California and were the parents of two minor children.  A few years into the marriage, the husband accepted a two year position in Connecticut.  The wife, a tenured teacher in California, took a two year leave of absence and the parties move to Connecticut with their children.  Approximately two years into the relocation, the husband filed for divorce; however, the wife filed a motion to dismiss, claiming Connecticut did not have jurisdiction over the case.

The Court’s Decision

Upon hearing evidence, the trial court found that the parties still owned investment property in California, that the parties’ bank accounts, driver’s licenses and deferred income plans were located in California, and that the wife specifically took a leave of absence because she intended to return to California following the husband’s two year commitment.  The court also found that by the time it heard the motions, the parties had actually begun the process of moving back to California.  In fact, the wife was once again employed in California and the children were attending school there.

From a legal standpoint, the court explained that “residence” in this state for purposes of establishing jurisdiction requires both domicile plus continuous physical residence.  Domicile, it explained, “implies a nexus between person and place of such permanence as to control the creation of legal relations and responsibilities of the utmost significance.”  Williams v. North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226 (1945).

According to the court, in order to obtain a divorce in Connecticut, one of the parties must be domiciled in Connecticut and must establish continuous physical residence in this state for a period of twelve months.  LaBow v. LaBow, 171 Conn. 433 (1976).  Based on its factual findings, the court determined that the parties never abandoned California as their domicile.  According to the court, their actions confirmed their intention to remain Californians and to eventually return there.


Maya Murphy P.C. has proudly been included in the 2024 Edition of Best Law Firms®, ranked among the top firms in the nation. In addition, Managing Partner Joseph C. Maya has been selected to The Best Lawyers in America® 2024 for his work in Employment Law and Education Law in Connecticut. Recognition in Best Lawyers® is awarded to firms and attorneys who demonstrate excellence in the industry, and is widely regarded by both clients and legal professionals as a significant honor.

Our firm in Westport, Connecticut serves clients with legal assistance all over the state, including the towns of: Ansonia, Beacon Falls, Bethany, Bethel, Branford, Bridgeport, Brookfield, Cheshire, Danbury, Darien, Derby, East Haven, Easton, Fairfield, Greenwich, Guilford, Hamden, Madison, Meriden, Middlebury, Milford, Monroe, Naugatuck, New Canaan, New Fairfield, New Haven, Newton, North Branford, North Haven, Norwalk, Orange, Oxford, Prospect, Redding, Ridgefield, Seymour, Shelton, Sherman, Southbury, Stamford, Stratford, Trumbull, Wallingford, Waterbury, West Haven, Weston, Westport, Wilton, and Woodbridge. In addition to assisting clients in Connecticut, our firm handles education law and employment law matters in New York as well. 

If you have any questions about employment law or education law in Connecticut, or would like to speak to an attorney about a legal matter, please contact Joseph C. Maya and the other experienced attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. at (203) 221-3100 or JMaya@Mayalaw.com to schedule a free initial consultation today.

Legal Articles Additional Disclaimer

Lawyer.com is not a law firm and does not offer legal advice. Content posted on Lawyer.com is the sole responsibility of the person from whom such content originated and is not reviewed or commented on by Lawyer.com. The application of law to any set of facts is a highly specialized skill, practiced by lawyers and often dependent on jurisdiction. Content on the site of a legal nature may or may not be accurate for a particular state or jurisdiction and may largely depend on specific circumstances surrounding individual cases, which may or may not be consistent with your circumstances or may no longer be up-to-date to the extent that laws have changed since posting. Legal articles therefore are for review as general research and for use in helping to gauge a lawyer's expertise on a matter. If you are seeking specific legal advice, Lawyer.com recommends that you contact a lawyer to review your specific issues. See Lawyer.com's full Terms of Use for more information.