Narrative Opinion Summary
In the case of Hauslohner v. Regents of the University of Michigan, the plaintiff challenged the university's denial of his request for in-state tuition rates, arguing that he had established residency in Michigan. Despite registering to vote and transferring his vehicle registration to Michigan, the university found that the plaintiff did not meet the one-year residency requirement due to a six-week absence in California. The trial court upheld the university's decision, concluding that the plaintiff's primary purpose in Michigan was educational rather than establishing domicile. The court highlighted factors such as the plaintiff's reliance on out-of-state financial support and lack of intent to permanently reside in Michigan. The decision was based on the principle that state universities can impose a one-year residency requirement and apply a rebuttable presumption that out-of-state students remain non-residents unless proven otherwise. The ruling was affirmed on appeal, as the plaintiff failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of domicile in Michigan. The public nature of the legal question involved precluded the imposition of costs. At the time of the trial, the plaintiff was living in Washington, D.C., further indicating a lack of permanent residency intent in Michigan.
Legal Issues Addressed
Domicile and Intent for Establishing Residencysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the plaintiff's primary purpose in moving to Michigan was educational, rather than establishing domicile, which disqualified him from resident tuition status.
Reasoning: The trial court found that the plaintiff's primary purpose for coming to Michigan was to pursue graduate education, thus affirming his non-resident classification.
Rebuttable Presumption of Non-Residency for Out-of-State Studentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The university applied a rebuttable presumption of non-residency to the plaintiff, requiring proof of domicile in Michigan, which the plaintiff failed to provide.
Reasoning: State universities may impose a one-year residence requirement for students seeking resident status and can apply a rebuttable presumption that out-of-state students remain non-residents.
Residency Requirements for Tuition Purposessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The university's denial of resident tuition status was upheld based on the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate continuous residence and intent to establish domicile in Michigan for at least one year prior to the term.
Reasoning: The plaintiff's claim of newly-acquired resident status hinges on whether he can prove his domicile in Michigan, which is a factual question.
Standards of Proof for Residency Statussubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiff failed to meet the 'clear and convincing proof' standard required to overturn the university's non-resident classification decision.
Reasoning: The evidence presented did not satisfy the 'clear and convincing proof' standard required by relevant Federal case law.