## Facts

- Ezrina Shim returned to New Jersey as a teenager after living abroad with her parents and resided in New Jersey for about four years before applying to Rutgers at age eighteen.
- Before enrollment, Shim had multiple New Jersey ties, including four years of New Jersey high school, a New Jersey driver’s license, voter registration, employment, and payment of New Jersey taxes.
- New Jersey law provides that a student who has lived in New Jersey for twelve months before enrollment is presumed domiciled in the state for in-state tuition purposes.
- Rutgers classified Shim as a non-resident, reasoning that because she was financially dependent on parents living outside New Jersey, an administrative regulation created a non-domicile presumption.
- Rutgers treated Shim’s financial dependence as dispositive and did not meaningfully evaluate other evidence of domicile.
- The trial court upheld Rutgers’ determination; the Appellate Division reversed and ordered a remand for a proper domicile determination.
- The Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the remand while clarifying the governing framework.

## Issues

1. How does the statutory presumption of New Jersey domicile for students residing in the state for at least twelve months interact with a regulation addressing students financially dependent on out-of-state parents?
2. When financial dependence exists, may the university decide domicile based solely on that factor, or must it consider all relevant domicile evidence?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s remand to Rutgers for reconsideration under the correct legal standard.
- A student meeting the twelve-month residency requirement is presumed domiciled in New Jersey for in-state tuition.
- Financial dependence on out-of-state parents raises a genuine issue about domicile and neutralizes the statutory presumption; it does not create a presumption of non-domicile.
- With no presumption favoring either side, Rutgers must consider all submitted evidence and decide domicile by a preponderance of the evidence.
- The Court did not declare Shim a domiciliary; it required Rutgers to reevaluate her status using the totality of the evidence.

## Legal Principles

- A statutory domicile presumption based on twelve months’ New Jersey residence is rebuttable and cannot be replaced by an opposite presumption solely due to parental residence and student financial dependence.
- Evidence that calls domicile into question may neutralize a presumption without shifting the burden to a contrary presumption.
- When the presumption is neutralized, the decision-maker must evaluate all relevant domicile indicators and determine domicile by a preponderance of the evidence.
- An agency decision that relies on a single factor and ignores other probative domicile evidence is unlawful under arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable review principles.

## Conclusion

The court required Rutgers to reassess Shim’s tuition residency status because financial dependence on out-of-state parents does not automatically make an otherwise statutorily presumed New Jersey resident a non-domiciliary; instead, it neutralizes the presumption and obligates a full, evidence-based domicile determination.


Shim v. Rutgers, 191 N.J. 374, 924 A.2d 465 (N.J. 2007)