## Facts

- George W. Frame and Lori (Lory) Herbison Frame were married students who enrolled at Utah State University (Utah State) and sought classification as Utah residents for tuition purposes.
- Utah State charged higher tuition to nonresidents, and residency determinations were governed by rules issued by the Utah Board of Regents.
- Beginning in 1971, the Frames lived in Logan, Utah on and off. During that time they rented an apartment, opened a local bank account, registered to vote in Utah, and filed Utah tax returns; George also obtained a Utah driver’s license.
- In June 1972, the Frames left Utah to conduct wildlife research in Tanzania connected to academic work. They opened a bank account in Tanzania, stored some personal belongings in Utah, and used a Utah State-related mailing address.
- The Frames returned to Logan in February 1978. In March 1978 they registered at Utah State for classes beginning in September 1978.
- Between March and September 1978, the Frames spent much of their time outside Utah (including travel and visits with family), while continuing to keep some ties to Utah (e.g., stored belongings and a Utah mailing address).
- The Board of Regents’ rule required an adult student seeking resident tuition to maintain continuous Utah residency for one full year immediately before the start of the academic period, allowing no more than 30 days’ absence during that year.
- Utah State (through the Residency Appeals Committee) denied the Frames’ application for resident status for September 1978.
- In April 1979, more than one year after their March 1978 registration, the Frames applied again. The committee denied the second application on the ground that they had been outside Utah for more than 30 days during the summer of 1978, which broke the required one-year continuous-residency period.
- The Frames sued, challenging the constitutionality of the 30-day absence rule and alleging the university’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. The parties agreed there was no genuine dispute of material fact, and the trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The Frames appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Board of Regents’ 30-day absence limit, as part of the one-year continuous-residency requirement for resident tuition, violated the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause by creating an unconstitutional irrebuttable presumption of nonresidency.
2. Whether the 30-day absence limit violated the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause because it lacked a rational basis.
3. Whether Utah State’s denial of resident tuition status to the Frames was arbitrary or capricious.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgment for the Residency Appeals Committee and other defendants.
- The court held that the one-year continuous-residency requirement, including the 30-day absence limit, did not violate due process as an impermissible irrebuttable presumption because it did not permanently bar a student from later qualifying for resident status upon meeting the objective requirements.
- The court held the rule did not violate equal protection because it was rationally related to legitimate state interests in distinguishing bona fide residents from nonresidents for tuition purposes and in using administrable standards.
- The court held the university’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious where the undisputed facts showed the Frames exceeded the permitted absence and the committee applied the governing rule accordingly.

## Legal Principles

- A state may set objective durational-residency criteria for in-state tuition, including a continuous-residence requirement and a limited allowance for time spent out of state, so long as the classification is rational and workable in administration.
- Due process concerns with “irrebuttable presumptions” are strongest when a rule permanently fixes a person’s status and forecloses any later showing of the relevant fact; a time-based residency rule that allows future eligibility after compliance is treated differently.
- Tuition residency classifications generally receive rational-basis review because they do not involve a suspect class or a fundamental right; the state may draw practical lines that are not perfectly precise.
- When parties agree there is no genuine dispute of material fact, an agency’s application of a clear residency rule to those facts is not arbitrary or capricious absent a showing of inconsistent or unlawful application.

## Conclusion

In Frame v. Residency Appeals Committee, the Utah Supreme Court upheld the Board of Regents’ requirement that a student establish one full year of continuous Utah residency with no more than a 30-day absence to qualify for resident tuition, rejected due process and equal protection challenges to the 30-day limit, and affirmed the university’s denial of the Frames’ resident-status applications based on their extended time outside Utah during the relevant year.


Frame v. Residency Appeals Committee, 675 P.2d 1157 (1983)