Residence

This Court has a well-settled body of case law to look to in deciding the issue in this case.   We have said that “[i]n West Virginia, the term ‘residence’ is synonymous with the term ‘domicile’ for election law purposes.”   Syllabus Point 7, White v. Manchin, 173 W.Va. 526, 318 S.E.2d 470 (1984).  “A [person] may live in several different places but he [or she] can have only one domicile.   Domicile is a place a person intends to retain as a permanent residence and go back to ultimately after moving away.”   Syllabus Point 2, Shaw v. Shaw, 155 W.Va. 712, 187 S.E.2d 124 (1972).  “Domicile is a combination of residence (or presence) and an intention of remaining.   If domicile has once existed, mere temporary absence will not destroy it, however long continued.”   Syllabus Point 2, Lotz v. Atamaniuk, 172 W.Va. 116, 304 S.E.2d 20 (1983).   Finally, “[t]he important facts in determining the domicile of a person who has more than one residence are the physical character of each, the time spent and the things done in each place, and whether or not there is an intention to return to the original domicile.”   Syllabus Point 4, Shaw v. Shaw, 155 W.Va. 712, 187 S.E.2d 124 (1972).

 When this Court weighs the evidence in a disputed residence case, we are mindful that “[a] domicile once acquired is presumed to continue until it is shown to have been changed.”  White v. Manchin, 173 W.Va. 526, 541, 318 S.E.2d 470, 486 (1984) (citing Hartman v. Hartman, 132 W.Va. at 735, 53 S.E.2d at 410, quoting Mitchell v. United States, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 350, 353, 22 L.Ed. 584, 588 (1874)).   In addition, where physical residency is a condition for election, “the residency requirement must be strictly construed.”  State v. Stalnaker, 186 W.Va. 233, 236, 412 S.E.2d 231, 234 (1991).   Finally, “[t]he party alleging a change of domicile has the burden of proof.”  Id.

- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wv-supreme-court-of-appeals/1220212.html#sthash.EHoYLMkG.dpuf