PAULSON, Justice.
This is an appeal by Tom Dietz from a judgment dismissing his action against the City of Medora; Rod Tjaden, the mayor of Medora; and William Connell, a member of the Medora City Council. Dietz contends that Tjaden and Connell are not residents of Medora and, therefore, are not qualified to serve as city officers. We affirm the dismissal.
Tjaden is a division manager employed by the Gold Seal Company to oversee Gold Seal’s property and tourist facilities in Me-dora. When in Medora, Tjaden lives in a house provided by the Gold Seal Company. During September through March, Tjaden spends much of his time traveling for business purposes.
Connell is the majority owner of the Hitching Post, a Medora business which is open throughout the year. When in Medo-ra, Connell lives in the living quarters above the family business.
Recently Tjaden and Connell purchased homes in Bismarck and Dickinson respectively. Tom Dietz, a resident and elector of the City of Medora, contends that Tjaden and Connell are no longer residents legally qualified to hold positions as governing officers of the City of Medora. The trial court heard evidence concerning Tjaden’s and Connell’s' residences and then dismissed Dietz’s action. In his oral opinion, the trial judge stated that he found “significant and substantial evidence” supporting Tjaden’s and Connell’s declared intentions to retain their residency and their status as residents of the city of Medora.
Section 40-13-01 of the North Dakota Century Code provides that an officer in a municipality must be “a qualified elector of the municipality and ... a resident thereof”.1 Similarly, § 40-08-05, N.D.C.C., provides that an alderman of a city council must be “a qualified elector of and a resident within the city”.
According to the North Dakota Constitution, a qualified elector is a “citizen of the United States, who has attained the age of eighteen years and who is a North Dakota resident”. N.D. Const, art. II, § 1. See also § 16.1-01-04(1), N.D.C.C. A qualified elector thus is a person legally qualified to vote because he meets age and residency requirements. In the case at hand, Tjaden and Connell, as city officers, are required by [704]*704statute to be actual residents of the City of Medora and are each required to meet the legal residency requirements of a qualified elector in the city. See Bergstrom v. Bergstrom, 271 N.W.2d 546, 550 (N.D.1978) [court recognizes distinction between legal residence and actual physical presence in child custody case]; Anderson v. Breithbarth, 62 N.D. 709, 714, 245 N.W. 483, 485 (1932) [court recognizes distinction between actual residence and legal or technical residence in school residency case].
We will first consider the requirement that Tjaden and Connell be actual “residents” of the City of Medora. Title 40, N.D.C.C., does not define “resident”. Cf. § 20.1-01-02(4), N.D.C.C. [resident defined for matters involving game, fish, predators, and boating]; § 37-24-01(3), N.D.C.C. [resident defined for educational assistance to veterans]; § 37-25-02(7), N.D.C.C. [resident defined in the Vietnam Conflict Veterans’ Adjusted Compensation Act]; § 57-38-01(10), N.D.C.C. [resident defined for state income tax purposes]. Although the word “resident” may have many meanings to suit different purposes, Goodsell v. State Automobile and Casualty Under., 261 Iowa 135, 153 N.W.2d 458, 460 (1967), the word “resident” in §§ 40-08-05 and 40-13-01, N.D.C.C., is to be understood in its ordinary sense. See § 1-02-02, N.D.C.C. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1931 (unabr.1971) defines the word “resident” as “one who resides in a place: one who dwells in a place for a period of some duration— often distinguished from inhabitant’’. Black’s Law Dictionary 1177 (5th ed. 1979) states that the “word ‘resident’ when used as a noun, means a dweller, habitant or occupant; one who resides or dwells in a place for a period of more, or less, duration ... ”. See also Staton v. Hutchinson, 370 So.2d 106, 109 (La.Ct.App.1978). A person may have two or more actual residences, as distinguished from his single legal residence. State v. Moodie, 65 N.D. 340, 356, 258 N.W. 558, 565 (1935). Accord Walker v. Harris, 398 So.2d 955, 958 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981); State v. Jones, 202 Neb. 488, 275 N.W.2d 851, 853 (1979).
In the instant case both Tjaden and Connell have two actual residences, Tjaden in Medora and in Bismarck and Connell in Medora and in Dickinson. Tjaden and Con-nell are “residents” of Medora for purposes of §§ 40-08-05 and 40-13-01, N.D.C.C., if they live, reside, or dwell in Medora. Both have living quarters in Medora where they keep personal possessions, clothing, furniture, and items of sentimental value. These living quarters are the dwelling places of Tjaden and Connell whenever they are in Medora. It is not necessary that Tjaden and Connell spend every day of the year in Medora to be “residents thereof”.
The determination of whether or not an individual is a resident is a question of fact to be reviewed according to Rule 52(a) of the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure: “Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” See generally Hoge v. Burleigh Cty. Water Management Dist., 311 N.W.2d 23, 28 (N.D.1981). We hold that the trial court’s finding was not clearly erroneous when it found that Tjaden and Connell are actual residents of the City of Medora.
We next consider the statutory requirement that Tjaden and Connell have legal residences in the City of Medora for the purpose of voting eligibility. The rules to be used to determine legal residence for voting eligibility (according to § 16.1-01-04(3), N.D.C.C.) are set forth in § 54-01-26, N.D.C.C., and provide, in pertinent part, as follows:
“1. It is the place where one remains when not called elsewhere for labor or other special or temporary purpose, and to which he returns in seasons of repose.
“2. There can be only one residence.
“3. A residence cannot be lost until another is gained.
[[Image here]]
“7. The residence can be changed only by the union of act and intent.”
[705]*705Every person has only one legal residence, as distinguished from the possibility of several actual physical residences. See § 54-01-26, N.D.C.C.; Wehrung v. Ideal School District No. 10, 78 N.W.2d 68, 70 (N.D. 1956); Moodie, supra 258 N.W. at 563; 25 Am.Jur.2d Elections § 66. An individual does not lose his legal residency for voting eligibility solely because of temporary absences from the area. N.D. Const, art. II, § 1; City of Enderlin v. Pontiac TP., Cass County, 62 N.D. 105, 242 N.W. 117, 121 (1932); 25 Am.Jur.2d Domicil § 31.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
PAULSON, Justice.
This is an appeal by Tom Dietz from a judgment dismissing his action against the City of Medora; Rod Tjaden, the mayor of Medora; and William Connell, a member of the Medora City Council. Dietz contends that Tjaden and Connell are not residents of Medora and, therefore, are not qualified to serve as city officers. We affirm the dismissal.
Tjaden is a division manager employed by the Gold Seal Company to oversee Gold Seal’s property and tourist facilities in Me-dora. When in Medora, Tjaden lives in a house provided by the Gold Seal Company. During September through March, Tjaden spends much of his time traveling for business purposes.
Connell is the majority owner of the Hitching Post, a Medora business which is open throughout the year. When in Medo-ra, Connell lives in the living quarters above the family business.
Recently Tjaden and Connell purchased homes in Bismarck and Dickinson respectively. Tom Dietz, a resident and elector of the City of Medora, contends that Tjaden and Connell are no longer residents legally qualified to hold positions as governing officers of the City of Medora. The trial court heard evidence concerning Tjaden’s and Connell’s' residences and then dismissed Dietz’s action. In his oral opinion, the trial judge stated that he found “significant and substantial evidence” supporting Tjaden’s and Connell’s declared intentions to retain their residency and their status as residents of the city of Medora.
Section 40-13-01 of the North Dakota Century Code provides that an officer in a municipality must be “a qualified elector of the municipality and ... a resident thereof”.1 Similarly, § 40-08-05, N.D.C.C., provides that an alderman of a city council must be “a qualified elector of and a resident within the city”.
According to the North Dakota Constitution, a qualified elector is a “citizen of the United States, who has attained the age of eighteen years and who is a North Dakota resident”. N.D. Const, art. II, § 1. See also § 16.1-01-04(1), N.D.C.C. A qualified elector thus is a person legally qualified to vote because he meets age and residency requirements. In the case at hand, Tjaden and Connell, as city officers, are required by [704]*704statute to be actual residents of the City of Medora and are each required to meet the legal residency requirements of a qualified elector in the city. See Bergstrom v. Bergstrom, 271 N.W.2d 546, 550 (N.D.1978) [court recognizes distinction between legal residence and actual physical presence in child custody case]; Anderson v. Breithbarth, 62 N.D. 709, 714, 245 N.W. 483, 485 (1932) [court recognizes distinction between actual residence and legal or technical residence in school residency case].
We will first consider the requirement that Tjaden and Connell be actual “residents” of the City of Medora. Title 40, N.D.C.C., does not define “resident”. Cf. § 20.1-01-02(4), N.D.C.C. [resident defined for matters involving game, fish, predators, and boating]; § 37-24-01(3), N.D.C.C. [resident defined for educational assistance to veterans]; § 37-25-02(7), N.D.C.C. [resident defined in the Vietnam Conflict Veterans’ Adjusted Compensation Act]; § 57-38-01(10), N.D.C.C. [resident defined for state income tax purposes]. Although the word “resident” may have many meanings to suit different purposes, Goodsell v. State Automobile and Casualty Under., 261 Iowa 135, 153 N.W.2d 458, 460 (1967), the word “resident” in §§ 40-08-05 and 40-13-01, N.D.C.C., is to be understood in its ordinary sense. See § 1-02-02, N.D.C.C. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1931 (unabr.1971) defines the word “resident” as “one who resides in a place: one who dwells in a place for a period of some duration— often distinguished from inhabitant’’. Black’s Law Dictionary 1177 (5th ed. 1979) states that the “word ‘resident’ when used as a noun, means a dweller, habitant or occupant; one who resides or dwells in a place for a period of more, or less, duration ... ”. See also Staton v. Hutchinson, 370 So.2d 106, 109 (La.Ct.App.1978). A person may have two or more actual residences, as distinguished from his single legal residence. State v. Moodie, 65 N.D. 340, 356, 258 N.W. 558, 565 (1935). Accord Walker v. Harris, 398 So.2d 955, 958 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981); State v. Jones, 202 Neb. 488, 275 N.W.2d 851, 853 (1979).
In the instant case both Tjaden and Connell have two actual residences, Tjaden in Medora and in Bismarck and Connell in Medora and in Dickinson. Tjaden and Con-nell are “residents” of Medora for purposes of §§ 40-08-05 and 40-13-01, N.D.C.C., if they live, reside, or dwell in Medora. Both have living quarters in Medora where they keep personal possessions, clothing, furniture, and items of sentimental value. These living quarters are the dwelling places of Tjaden and Connell whenever they are in Medora. It is not necessary that Tjaden and Connell spend every day of the year in Medora to be “residents thereof”.
The determination of whether or not an individual is a resident is a question of fact to be reviewed according to Rule 52(a) of the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure: “Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” See generally Hoge v. Burleigh Cty. Water Management Dist., 311 N.W.2d 23, 28 (N.D.1981). We hold that the trial court’s finding was not clearly erroneous when it found that Tjaden and Connell are actual residents of the City of Medora.
We next consider the statutory requirement that Tjaden and Connell have legal residences in the City of Medora for the purpose of voting eligibility. The rules to be used to determine legal residence for voting eligibility (according to § 16.1-01-04(3), N.D.C.C.) are set forth in § 54-01-26, N.D.C.C., and provide, in pertinent part, as follows:
“1. It is the place where one remains when not called elsewhere for labor or other special or temporary purpose, and to which he returns in seasons of repose.
“2. There can be only one residence.
“3. A residence cannot be lost until another is gained.
[[Image here]]
“7. The residence can be changed only by the union of act and intent.”
[705]*705Every person has only one legal residence, as distinguished from the possibility of several actual physical residences. See § 54-01-26, N.D.C.C.; Wehrung v. Ideal School District No. 10, 78 N.W.2d 68, 70 (N.D. 1956); Moodie, supra 258 N.W. at 563; 25 Am.Jur.2d Elections § 66. An individual does not lose his legal residency for voting eligibility solely because of temporary absences from the area. N.D. Const, art. II, § 1; City of Enderlin v. Pontiac TP., Cass County, 62 N.D. 105, 242 N.W. 117, 121 (1932); 25 Am.Jur.2d Domicil § 31.
A legal residence is the place where an individual has established his home, where he is habitually present, and which he intends to return to when he is away for business or pleasure. Nelson v. Gass, 27 N.D. 357, 146 N.W. 537, 543 (1914). See § 54-01-26(1), N.D.C.C.; Wehrung, supra 78 N.W.2d at 70. There is a legal presumption against a change of legal residence, or domicile, § 31-11-03(40), N.D. C.C.; and the burden of proving the change of legal residence is on the person alleging the change, in this case, Dietz. Mittelstadt v. Bender, 210 N.W.2d 89, 93 (N.D.1973); Northwestern Mortgage & S. Co. v. Noel Const. Co., 71 N.D. 256, 300 N.W. 28, 32 (1941); Moodie, supra 258 N.W. at 564.
Dietz must prove three elements to show Tjaden’s and Connell’s legal residences have changed — (1) abandonment of the old domicile, (2) actual removal to a new domicile, and (3) intent to change from the old to the new and to remain at the new domicile. Northwestern Mortgage, supra 300 N.W. at 31; Moodie, supra 258 N.W. at 564. Although a person’s intent cannot easily be analyzed, Jones, supra 275 N.W.2d at 853, intent is an important consideration when determining whether or not a legal residence has changed. Moodie, supra 258 N.W. at 564; Nelson, supra 146 N.W. at 543; 25 Am.Jur.2d Elections § 66. Both Tjaden and Connell testified that they intended to remain legal residents of the City of Medora. A person’s declaration of intent is significant, Walker, supra 398 So.2d at 958; however, inconsistent acts can negate declared intent. Moodie, supra 258 N.W. at 563; Nelson, supra 146 N.W. at 543.
All of the facts and circumstances in the life of an individual may be used when considering the factual issue of whether or not there has been a change of legal residence. Schillerstrom v. Schillerstrom, 75 N.D. 667, 32 N.W.2d 106, 115 (1948); Moodie, supra 258 N.W. at 563. As we noted in Moodie, supra 258 N.W. at 564:
“the difficulties . .. with this question are due not so much to any obscurity or uncertainty in the law as to the infinite variety of facts and circumstances which have to be considered in its application to individual cases.”
Evidence that has been considered by other courts regarding the issue of legal residence includes declarations, payment of taxes, licenses, business connections, property, ownership, burial plans, church membership, and membership in clubs. See 25 Am. Jur.2d Domicil §§ 92-100. One court found it significant that an individual retained a dwelling place in a locality showing that he intended to return to that locality and thus he was not abandoning his legal residence there. Moore v. Tiller, 409 S.W.2d 813, 816 (Ky.Ct.App.1966). Legal residence, determined according to the rules in § 54-01-26, N.D.C.C., is a question of fact to be determined by the factfinder and to be reviewed according to the “clearly erroneous” standard of Rule 52(a), N.D.R.Civ.P. See George v. Compson, 251 N.W.2d 743, 745 (N.D.1977); Wehrung, supra 78 N.W.2d at 70; Moodie, supra 258 N.W. at 563.
During the trial the judge heard the following evidence concerning Tjaden’s legal residency: (1) he votes in Medora; (2) he belongs to Medora clubs and advisory councils and supports a church in Medora; (3) his will, checks, income tax forms, passport, and car registration list Medora as his address; (4) he has a telephone in Medora and receives newspapers in Medora; (5) he is provided a home in Medora by his employer at which he keeps personal possessions; and (6) it is his declared intent to be a legal resident of the City of Medora. The trial judge also heard evidence regarding Tjaden’s connections with the City of Bis[706]*706marck. Tjaden owns a home in Bismarck and his children attend the Bismarck public schools. Tjaden belongs to a church in Bismarck, banks in Bismarck, consults with Bismarck doctors, receives newspapers in Bismarck, has a telephone in Bismarck, and belongs to clubs in Bismarck.
The judge heard similar testimony concerning Connell: (1) Connell has declared his intent to be a legal resident of Medora; (2) he lists Medora as his address on his checks, income tax forms, driver’s license, car registration, and life insurance policy; (3) he votes in Medora, banks in Medora; and has purchased a cemetery plot in Medo-ra; (4) he owns a business in Medora; (5) he has living quarters above the business that contain personal belongings; (6) he is involved in community activities in Medora and tried to purchase a home there; and (7) he receives mail in Medora. However, Con-nell has purchased a home in Dickinson. He also receives mail in Dickinson, banks in Dickinson, and has a telephone in Dickinson.
The trial court considered this evidence, along with other evidence, and concluded the following:
“By those facts and others, the Court finds that neither Defendant Tjaden or Connell ceased in any manner to be a resident of the City of Medora. They have been at all times residents of Medo-ra, since their residency was established as already found. They have not abandoned such residency at anytime from its establishment to and including this date of trial. They have not forfeited it in any manner. They have not performed any acts or conduct which negate or conflict with their stated intention to be residents of Medora. On those findings, the Court concludes that they are eligible to hold the offices in the Medora government which they presently hole [sic] by election of the people of that City. The Complaint accordingly will be dismissed in all respects.”
We have reviewed the trial court’s findings and do not find that they are clearly erroneous.
Tjaden and Connell requested just damages, double costs, and attorney fees on appeal, according to Rule 38 of the North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure. To award these costs we must find that Dietz’s appeal is frivolous; however, we do not find that this appeal is frivolous.
We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Dietz’s action, and we deny Tjaden’s and Connell’s requests for the costs of this appeal.
ERICKSTAD, C.J., and PEDERSON and VANDE WALLE, JJ., concur.