--- title: "Mas v. Perry" type: Landmark Case source: https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/mas-v-perry --- # Mas v. Perry Mas v. Perry is the leading case on determining domicile for diversity jurisdiction purposes. It established key principles for determining a person's state citizenship, including that a married woman's domicile is not automatically that of her husband, that students do not necessarily acquire domicile in the state where they attend school, and that domicile requires both physical presence and intent to remain. ## Citation 489 F.2d 1396 (5th Cir. 1974) ## Year 1974 ## Court United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ## Facts Jean Paul Mas, a citizen of France, and his wife Judy, a native of Mississippi, were graduate students at Louisiana State University. They were living in a rented apartment in Baton Rouge when they discovered that their landlord, Oliver Perry, a Louisiana citizen, had been secretly observing them through two-way mirrors in their bedroom and bathroom. The Mases sued Perry for invasion of privacy in the Western District of Louisiana, asserting diversity jurisdiction. Perry challenged jurisdiction, arguing that Judy Mas had become domiciled in Louisiana by living and attending school there. ## Procedural History The district court found diversity jurisdiction existed and entered judgment for the Mases. Perry appealed to the Fifth Circuit, challenging subject matter jurisdiction. ## Issue Whether Judy Mas was a citizen of Mississippi or Louisiana for diversity jurisdiction purposes, given that she was a Mississippi native living in Louisiana as a student, and whether her domicile changed by virtue of her marriage to a French citizen or by living in Louisiana. ## Holding The Fifth Circuit held that diversity jurisdiction existed. Judy Mas remained domiciled in Mississippi because she had never formed an intent to make Louisiana her permanent home. Merely living in a state as a student does not change domicile. Her marriage to a French citizen did not change her domicile because the outdated rule that a wife automatically takes her husband's domicile has been abandoned. Jean Paul Mas was an alien, satisfying the alienage diversity statute. ## Reasoning The court applied the established test for domicile: a person's domicile is the place where they have a true, fixed home and principal establishment, to which they intend to return whenever absent. A change of domicile requires (1) physical presence in the new domicile and (2) an intention to remain there. Although Judy Mas lived in Louisiana, she was there as a student and had not formed the intent to make Louisiana her permanent home. The court also rejected the antiquated rule that a married woman's domicile automatically follows her husband's, noting that this rule had been widely criticized and abandoned. Judy remained a citizen of Mississippi, the last state where she was domiciled, creating complete diversity with Perry, a Louisiana citizen. ## Impact Mas v. Perry remains the primary case cited for the rules governing domicile in diversity jurisdiction. Its holding that student residence does not automatically establish domicile and its rejection of the dependent-domicile rule for married women are widely applied by federal courts. The case is essential reading for understanding how citizenship is determined for diversity purposes, particularly for individuals who move frequently or live in a state temporarily. ## Key Quotes - A person's domicile is the place of 'his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which he has the intention of returning whenever he is absent therefrom.' - It has been held that a student does not acquire a domicile for diversity purposes by mere attendance at a university. - The domicile of the wife—Loss of Husband's Domicile has been severely criticized and in our view should be discarded. ## Related Cases - strawbridge-v-curtiss - louisville-and-nashville-railroad-v-mottley - erie-railroad-v-tompkins ## Exam Relevance Mas v. Perry is heavily tested in questions about diversity jurisdiction, particularly those involving domicile. Students are often given fact patterns involving students, married couples, military personnel, or people who have moved between states and must determine each party's domicile. The case is also tested for its rejection of the dependent-domicile rule for married women. ## Study Tips - Master the two-part domicile test: physical presence plus intent to remain indefinitely. Both elements must be satisfied to change domicile. - Remember that student status, military deployment, and temporary work assignments typically do not change domicile. - Know that the old rule linking a wife's domicile to her husband's has been abandoned. - Apply the rule that a person retains their last established domicile until a new one is acquired — if no intent to remain is proven, the old domicile continues. ## Doctrine Established Domicile Test for Diversity Jurisdiction (Physical Presence Plus Intent) --- Source: [Mas v. Perry — CaseBriefly](https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/mas-v-perry)