In re ESTATE OF JONES - 192 Iowa 78, 182 N.W. 227 (1921)

Rule:

The words "domicile" and "residence" are not always synonymous at law, nor are they convertible terms. A person may have his residence in one place, while his domicile is in another. A person may have more than one residence at the same time, but can have only one domicile, at least for purposes of succession. Every person, under all circumstances and conditions, must have a domicile somewhere. There are different kinds of domiciles recognized by the law. It is generally held that the subject may be divided into three general classes: (1) domicile of origin, (2) domicile of choice, and (3) domicile by operation of law. The domicile of origin of every person is the domicile of his parents at the time of his birth. By the general laws of the civilized world, the domicile of the parents at the time of birth, or what is termed the "domicile of origin," constitutes the domicile of an infant, and continues, until abandoned, or until the acquisition of a new domicile in a different place. The domicile of choice is the place which a person has elected and chosen for himself, to displace his previous domicile. Domicile by operation of law is that domicile which the law attributes to a person, independent of his own intention or action of residence. This results generally from the domestic relations of husband and wife, or parent and child. 

Facts:

The decedent, a native of Wales, came to the United States in 1883 and lived in Iowa. In 1896, the decedent became a naturalized citizen. He later decided to permanently return to his native country. In 1915, the decedent disposed of his property and set sail from New York to Wales. He was drowned at sea when his boat was sunk by a German submarine. Decedent's brothers and sisters secured the appointment of an administrator in Iowa to settle decedent's estate. The daughter claimed to be the decedent's sole heir and entitled to his entire estate. Appellees, an estate administrator and the decedent's brothers and sisters, contended that the decedent was instantly domiciled in Wales based on his abandonment of his Iowa domicile, therefore under British rule, the daughter, as an illegitimate child, had no interest in the estate. The district court denied the daughter's claim against appellees to the entire estate of the decedent.

Issue:

Was the domicile of the decedent at the time of his death in Wales, thus, the appellant, as his illegitimate child, would have no interest in his estate?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court determined that despite the decedent's present intention to abandon his domicile of choice and return to his domicile of origin, his death at sea prevented him from establishing a new domicile in Wales. Because no such domicile was acquired at the time of his death, his personal estate was required to be administered according to the laws of Iowa. Accordingly, the property passed to the daughter as his sole heir, under the laws of this state.