## Facts

- Sonia and David Alton were married and previously domiciled in West Hartford, Connecticut.
- Sonia traveled to the Virgin Islands and arrived on February 10, 1953.
- After six weeks and one day of continuous presence, Sonia filed a divorce complaint on March 25, 1953.
- Sonia relied on a 1953 amendment to the Virgin Islands divorce statute providing that six weeks’ continuous presence was “prima facie evidence of domicile” and that, if the defendant was personally served in the district or entered a general appearance, the court would have divorce jurisdiction “without further reference to domicile.”
- David entered an appearance, waived service, and did not contest the complaint.
- A commissioner recommended granting a divorce on the ground of incompatibility of temperament.
- The district judge requested additional proof of Sonia’s domicile in the Virgin Islands; none was provided, and the divorce was denied.
- Sonia appealed from the denial of relief.

## Issues

1. Whether a territorial statute may treat six weeks’ continuous physical presence as prima facie evidence of domicile for purposes of divorce jurisdiction.
2. Whether a territorial court may exercise divorce jurisdiction solely based on the plaintiff’s six weeks’ presence and personal jurisdiction over both parties, without establishing domicile.
3. Whether the Virgin Islands legislature had authority under the Organic Act to enact a divorce jurisdiction scheme aimed at parties lacking a genuine local connection.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of the divorce.
- The court held invalid the statutory provision making six weeks’ presence prima facie evidence of domicile because the presumption lacked a rational connection between the fact proved (short-term presence) and the fact presumed (domicile).
- The court held invalid the provision purporting to confer divorce jurisdiction “without further reference to domicile” upon service or appearance, as inconsistent with due process and beyond the legislature’s Organic Act authority.
- Because the statutory shortcuts to jurisdiction were invalid, the district court properly required independent proof of domicile and denied relief when it was not shown.

## Legal Principles

- Divorce jurisdiction is generally tied to the domicile of at least one spouse; marital status is a matter of public concern primarily regulated by the jurisdiction of domicile.
- Legislative presumptions affecting jurisdiction must satisfy due process limits, including a rational connection between the proved fact and the presumed fact.
- A statute cannot constitutionally manufacture divorce jurisdiction by substituting brief physical presence for domicile.
- Personal jurisdiction over both spouses, standing alone, is insufficient to support divorce jurisdiction when the forum lacks a legitimate sovereign interest grounded in domicile.
- A territorial legislature exercising delegated authority may legislate only on subjects of local application and may not extend its courts’ divorce power to disputes lacking a genuine local nexus.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit upheld the denial of Sonia Alton’s Virgin Islands divorce because the statutory provisions attempting to infer domicile from a short stay and to grant divorce jurisdiction without domicile exceeded territorial authority and failed due process limits, leaving domicile unproven and jurisdiction lacking.


Alton v. Alton, 207 F.2d 667 (3d Cir. 1953)