South Dakota residency requirement for divorce

[Aaron13100]

That's unlikely to work.

See Rush v. Rush and Parsley v. Parsley:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6820005022951601550&q=25-4-30&hl=en&as_sdt=4,42

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12547655803634494271&q=25-4-30&hl=en&as_sdt=4,42

@adjusterjack This is helpful. Thanks for the link. It seems that the spouse there filed to dismiss the case whereas my spouse and I are in complete agreement on every aspect of the divorce. (uncontested) It does mention: the residence "must not be a residence solely for the purpose of procuring a divorce[.]" Id. (quoting Snyder, 35 N.W.2d at 34); How that's determined isn't mentioned. Which is pretty similar to my initial question...

 

[Aaron13100]

Basically it's an uncontested divorce and we're having jurisdiction issues because we're both full-time travelers. Flying to Guam and paying a lawyer there is more expensive than establishing residency in South Dakota so we're trying to avoid that.

 

[Ohiogal]

So are you going to be in South Dakota for 60 days?

 

[Ohiogal]

See § 25-4-34.

Also in Rush v. Rush, how long will it take you to serve your wife? How long will you be in South Dakota?

 

[Aaron13100]

See § 25-4-34.
So are you going to be in South Dakota for 60 days?
Also in Rush v. Rush, how long will it take you to serve your wife? How long will you be in South Dakota?

I guess you read that you have to stay remain in South Dakota until the divorce decree is issued, from http://www.statebarofsouthdakota.com/p/cm/ld/fid=30 and that's why you're asking about the 60 days. That's the only place I've found that says that. Another site says you don't have to remain in the state after filing.
http://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/Codified_Laws/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=25-4-30

Which one do you think has the right information?

Serving my wife won't take long I guess. We'll be working together to fill out the paperwork. We're both requesting the divorce. I don't understand the significance of the question.

 

[Zigner]

@Zigner As far as I can tell the residency requirement is pretty easy to meet. For example, in order to get a SD driver's license I only need to have a receipt from one night's stay, an address, and a residency affidavit. (https://dps.sd.gov/driver-licensing/renew-and-duplicate/full-time-travelers). My spouse is traveling as well, currently out of the country.

Your link is to the page for driver's license renewals, not new licenses. Additionally, you would have to lie on the affidavit of residency if you go that route.

 

[Zigner]

I guess you read that you have to stay remain in South Dakota until the divorce decree is issued, from http://www.statebarofsouthdakota.com/p/cm/ld/fid=30 and that's why you're asking about the 60 days. That's the only place I've found that says that. Another site says you don't have to remain in the state after filing.
http://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/Codified_Laws/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=25-4-30

Which one do you think has the right information?

Serving my wife won't take long I guess. We'll be working together to fill out the paperwork. We're both requesting the divorce. I don't understand the significance of the question.

No, you have to be a resident of SD when she is served. You, admittedly, are not going to be a resident of the state and are merely attempting to manipulate the system.

Have at it with your scheme. Your lies on government documents might even work...but what you're attempting to do is still improper.

 

[Aaron13100]

No, you have to be a resident of SD when she is served. You, admittedly, are not going to be a resident of the state and are merely attempting to manipulate the system.

Have at it with your scheme. Your lies on government documents might even work...but what you're attempting to do is still improper.

Thanks for your input. I asked the question because I wanted to find out if I had interpreted things correctly. I've gotten a lot of responses about it not being right, or it being a scheme, or manipulating the system, but I can't find any information about what's actually necessary to prove residency. If I abide by the law and I can prove residency then, to me, it seems like there's nothing wrong with what I want to. I believe this because I think there's a reason there's a 0 day residency requirement in South Dakota. (It's different than most other states.) The courts are aware of this difference, so if it weren't meant to be used in this way then it seems like the law would be changed to require a longer minimum residency.

 

[Aaron13100]

Thanks for your input. I asked the question because I wanted to find out if I had interpreted things correctly. I've gotten a lot of responses about it not being right, or it being a scheme, or manipulating the system, but I can't find any information about what's actually necessary to prove residency. If I abide by the law and I can prove residency then, to me, it seems like there's nothing wrong with what I want to. I believe this because I think there's a reason there's a 0 day residency requirement in South Dakota. (It's different than most other states.) The courts are aware of this difference, so if it weren't meant to be used in this way then it seems like the law would be changed to require a longer minimum residency.

Ah, except for the very first response from adjusterjack which is pretty much the answer I was hoping for.

 

[Aaron13100]

Anyway, thank you everyone for your answers and comments. I'll call the clerk's office and ask them as well.

 

[Zigner]

Thanks for your input. I asked the question because I wanted to find out if I had interpreted things correctly. I've gotten a lot of responses about it not being right, or it being a scheme, or manipulating the system, but I can't find any information about what's actually necessary to prove residency. If I abide by the law and I can prove residency then, to me, it seems like there's nothing wrong with what I want to. I believe this because I think there's a reason there's a 0 day residency requirement in South Dakota. (It's different than most other states.) The courts are aware of this difference, so if it weren't meant to be used in this way then it seems like the law would be changed to require a longer minimum residency.

You have to intend to be a resident of the state. You have no intention of doing that and are merely trying to use the state's court system for your own gain. THAT is what is wrong with your scheme.

 

[xylene]

Getting advice from a lawyer who specializes in your permanent traveler community would be best.*

The clerk is not going to advise you meaningfully. Legally she can't give you legal advice.

I don't mean that sarcastically. I assume you are talking about RV/Vagabond/Tramp or you could mean Irish/Roma thing. Either way their are lawyers who specialize in the complexities of those with completely itinerant lifestyles. Naturally there would be as such a lifestyle presents complexities in dealing with the government at many levels, not to mention the inevitable conflicts and confrontations with law enforcement any non-mainstream lifestyle tends to bring.

Divorce can be expensive even for those with permanent fixed addresses, so don't expect that because of your ways that it will be cheaper or easier.