Lundquist v. Precision Valley Aviation, Inc. - 946 F.2d 8 (1st Cir. 1991)

Rule:

The district court's determination that plaintiff was a citizen of New Hampshire at the time he commenced the action is a mixed question of law and fact and as such may not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. A finding is "clearly erroneous" when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. If the district court's account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the court of appeals may not reverse it even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently. Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.

Facts:

Plaintiff Courtney Lundquist filed suit to recover on a promissory note from the sale of corporate stock to defendant corporate stock purchasers. Plaintiff alleged diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1332 and claimed to reside in Massachusetts. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It alleged that both parties were New Hampshire citizens. The district court held that plaintiff lived in Florida at material times but voted and filed corporate papers in New Hampshire. It found that plaintiff was a New Hampshire resident and that there was no diversity of citizenship. Plaintiff appealed. 

Issue:

Under the circumstances, did the district court err in finding that there was lack of complete diversity of citizenship?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

On appeal, the court affirmed. It found that the district court's determination of the mixed question of law and fact was not clearly erroneous and there was no firm conviction that a mistake was committed. There was substantial evidence to support either argument that plaintiff was domiciled in New Hampshire or Florida. New Hampshire law required at least one corporate director to be an actual resident of New Hampshire and plaintiff was the sole corporate director while he had a Florida home, bank accounts, drivers' license, and spent most of his time in Florida.