## Facts

- David F. Coury, a citizen of California, sued Alain Prot for breach of contract and fraud in Texas state court arising from a business relationship.
- Prot was a dual citizen of the United States and France and removed to federal court, asserting alienage jurisdiction based on his claimed domicile in France.
- The district court dismissed Coury’s fraud claim, but a jury found for Coury on the contract claim and awarded $164,500 (including attorney’s fees) plus post-judgment interest.
- Prot moved after the verdict for leave to amend his answer to add an affirmative defense that the contract was illegal; the district court denied the request.
- To satisfy the judgment, the district court granted a turnover order directing that two parcels of Prot’s Texas real property be used to pay the judgment; Prot asserted Texas homestead exemptions.
- On an earlier appeal, the Fifth Circuit remanded for additional findings on Prot’s domicile at the time suit was filed and removed; on remand the district court found Prot was domiciled in Texas.
- Coury cross-appealed seeking prejudgment interest and, if the contract judgment were reversed, review of the fraud dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether subject-matter jurisdiction existed when the defendant was a dual U.S.–French citizen claiming domicile abroad at the time of filing and removal.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Prot’s post-verdict motion to amend his answer to add an illegality defense.
3. Whether Prot’s Texas real property was exempt from a turnover order under Texas homestead law.
4. Whether Coury was entitled to prejudgment interest or other relief on cross-appeal.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed that federal subject-matter jurisdiction existed because Prot, treated only as a U.S. citizen, was domiciled in Texas and Coury was domiciled in California, satisfying 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
- The court affirmed the denial of Prot’s post-verdict motion to amend to add an illegality defense.
- The court affirmed the turnover order, holding Prot’s Texas properties were not protected as homesteads because any homestead interest had been abandoned.
- The court rejected Coury’s cross-appeal requests and left the district court’s rulings intact.

## Legal Principles

- For diversity purposes, a dual national’s foreign citizenship is disregarded; only the party’s U.S. citizenship is recognized under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
- A U.S. citizen domiciled abroad is not a “citizen of a State” and therefore cannot support diversity jurisdiction; domicile at filing/removal is controlling.
- Domicile requires physical presence plus intent to remain indefinitely; courts assess intent using objective ties and credibility of statements, not residence abroad alone.
- Denial of a post-verdict request to amend pleadings is reviewed for abuse of discretion; undue delay and prejudice to the opposing party support denial.
- Under Texas law, homestead protection can be lost by abandonment; property not qualifying as a homestead may be reached through a turnover order to satisfy a judgment.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit sustained federal jurisdiction by treating the dual citizen defendant solely as a U.S. citizen and affirming a Texas domicile at the relevant time, then affirmed the contract judgment, the refusal to allow a late illegality defense, and a turnover order because the claimed Texas homestead protection had been abandoned.


Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244 (5th Cir. 1996)