In re Seyse, 353 N.J. Super. 580 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 175 N.J. 80 (2002)

The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division examines the issue of “domicile,” and rules that a guardian may change the domicile of his or her ward.

In 1994, Marguerite Seyse was found to be an incapacitated person, and her two daughters (as well as the spouse of one of her daughters) were appointed as her co-guardians. In re Seyse, 353 N.J. Super. 580 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 175 N.J. 80 (2002). The two sisters had a hostile relationship.

In 1998, one of the co-guardians who lived in Connecticut (Ms. Olson) moved Mrs. Seyse to Ms. Olson’s home in Connecticut. After both daughters filed applications to remove the other as co-guardian, and Ms. Olson applied in Connecticut to be appointed sole guardian of Mrs. Seyse, a guardian ad litem was appointed and reported to the New Jersey court that Mrs. Seyse had advised her that she enjoyed living with her daughter in Connecticut. The New Jersey court appointed Ms. Olson as guardian of the person and the other sister as guardian of the property. Mrs. Seyse died in 1999.

Thereafter, the sisters filed actions regarding whether New Jersey or Connecticut had probate jurisdiction of Mrs. Seyse’s estate.

In deciding this issue, the court held that “jurisdiction over an incompetent person requires a determination of domicile,” and that, although a person may have many residences, he may have only one “domicile.” “Domicile” is “a place where a person has his true, fixed, permanent home, and principal establishment, and to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning.” Although the New Jersey sister claimed that Mrs. Seyse’s domicile could not change after she had been determined incapacitated in 1994, the court rejected that notion, “since it is based on an unacceptable principle that an incompetent is incompetent for all purposes and for all time.” As the Seyse court explained,

Developments in the study of the human mind and mental disabilities or disease have taught us that incompetency is not always immutable, and courts must be mindful not to limit the rights of an incapacitated person based on the assumption that he or she is incapacitated for all purposes.

It noted that courts have held that a person in need of a guardian may still have the capacity to choose a domicile, but that “courts must be wary of placing too much reliance on ‘glimmerings of rationality’ in determining whether an actual intentional change of domicile has occurred.” The Seyse court concluded that, although Mrs. Seyse’s expressed preference to remain in Connecticut was not sufficient to determine that Connecticut was her domicile, “a guardian may act to change the domicile of her ward,” and that a change of domicile had been effectuated by her guardian in this case.