Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #291159; Unpublished
Judges Stephens, Cavanagh, and Owens; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Determination of Domicile [3114(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s determination that plaintiff, a 34-year-old son, was not domiciled with his mother for purposes of MCL 500.3114.
The plaintiff in this case was injured in a motor vehicle accident while riding as a passenger in a vehicle driven by John Bowen. Plaintiff sought personal injury protection benefits through Bowen’s insurer, Pioneer State Mutual. Pioneer, in turn, argued that plaintiff was domiciled with his mother and, therefore, his mother’s insurer, State Farm, was liable.
In affirming the trial court’s holding that plaintiff was not domiciled with his mother, the court first noted that plaintiff was a “free spirit” who moved around the majority of the time. Although he maintained his mother’s address as his mailing address, the court stated that even a free spirit needs a regular place to collect mail. Although he returned home for visitation with his daughter about once each month, this appeared to be driven by convenience in order to have his mother participate in the visits. The court also noted that plaintiff did not rely on his mother for support and stated that he did not intend to remain domiciled with her. Furthermore, although Pioneer argued that plaintiff’s mother’s home is the only permanent address plaintiff ever had, Pioneer ignored the fact that plaintiff had lived with his ex-fiancee for three years in their own home. According to the court, the facts did not show a clear intent that plaintiff intended to be domiciled with his mother. Finally, the court noted that plaintiff intended to live with his girlfriend in a trailer and nothing in the circumstances rebutted that intent. In this regard, the court stated:
“We find that the trial court did not err when it determined that plaintiff was no longer domiciled with Timmer. The trial court’s finding that plaintiff was a ‘free spirit’ who moved around a majority of the time is an accurate one. The fact that he maintained his mother’s address as his mailing address appears to be a recognition that even a free spirit needs a regular place to collect mail. His monthly return to the home to visit with his daughter also appeared to be driven by convenience or a desire to have his mother participate in the visits. Plaintiff does not rely on Timmer for support and has claimed to have had no intention to remain domiciled with her. In addition, while Pioneer claims that Timmer’s home is the only permanent address plaintiff has ever had, it ignores plaintiff’s three-year residence with his ex-fiancee’ in their house. Plaintiff obviously intended to remain indefinitely at that location. Nothing in the facts presented showed a clear intent to return his domicile to Timmer’s home afterward, or to maintain it as such once he moved on to his next residence. As stated in Dairyland Ins Co, ‘[s]torage of some of his belongings at his mother’s home, use of such home as a mailing address, and the knowledge that he could and would return to live with her if forced to do so by adverse circumstances, are insufficient to constitute him a member of his mother’s household.’. . . We thus find that the circumstances do not rebut the prima facie conclusion that plaintiff intended to reside with White indefinitely, if not permanently, at the time of the accident.”
