Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 76109; Unpublished
Judges Wahls, Shepherd, and Quinnell; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable: Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Determination of Domicile [§3114(1)]
Resident Relatives [§3114(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
This per curiam Opinion reverses the trial court's finding that plaintiff was domiciled in the same household as her brother and thus not entitled to recover PIP benefits from defendant under §3114(1). Plaintiff was a 26-year-old single woman who lived alone in an upstairs flat in a home owned by her brother. Her brother, who was the landlord, lived in the downstairs flat Plaintiff paid monthly rent of $250 in cash and did not have any receipts to prove her payments. Plaintiff did not have kitchen privileges in her brother's residence and had separate living, sleeping and cooking facilities. Although both flats shared the same address number and exterior door, there was a common hallway inside with separate doors for the upstairs and downstairs flats. Plaintiff claimed the upstairs flat was her permanent and exclusive place of residence. The building was zoned Rl for single-family residences.
The trial court held in favor of defendant and concluded that plaintiff was domiciled in the same home as her brother and should thus draw her PIP benefits from her brother's insurance policy. The Court of Appeals reversed on the basis of the Supreme Court's opinion in Workman v DAIIE (Item No. 143).
The Court of Appeals held, "The mere existence of a zoning ordinance is insufficient to establish the nature of a residence. . . . Defendant's and the court's position is, in effect, that the zoning law has created an absolute or at least rebuttable presumption of conformity. We disapprove of such a rule, although we would recognize estoppel in an appropriate case." The court ruled that the case raised disputed factual questions which preclude summary judgment.
