Family Code Section 6.301 Texas Domicile Requirement | Rullman v. Rullman (2025)

Rullman v. Rullman, 02-25-00370-CV, August 13, 2026.

On appeal from 325th District Court, Tarrant County, Texas

Synopsis

Texas Family Code Section 6.301 is a true gatekeeping statute: a divorce suit cannot be maintained unless, when suit is filed, either spouse was a Texas domiciliary for the preceding six months and a resident of the county of suit for the preceding ninety days. In Rullman v. Rullman, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that temporary presence in Tarrant County, even if repeated or connected to owned property, does not satisfy Section 6.301 without proof of intent to make Texas and the county a fixed and permanent home.

Relevance to Family Law

This opinion matters immediately to Texas family-law litigators because Section 6.301 is often treated as a pleading formality when, in reality, it can dispose of the entire divorce case after substantial litigation has already occurred. The case is especially important in high-asset and interstate marriage cases involving multiple homes, frequent travel, college-town properties, seasonal stays, or tactical filing races. It also has implications beyond divorce pleadings: when the Texas court cannot maintain the divorce, property division, temporary orders tied to the divorce proceeding, and strategic control over forum can all be lost. For custody practitioners, the case is a reminder to keep divorce residence/domicile concepts separate from UCCJEA home-state analysis; satisfying one does not establish the other.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Chris and Shannon Rullman married in Idaho, later moved to Colorado, and lived there as spouses for years. Chris remained in Colorado through the filing of suit and had never lived in Texas. During the marriage, the parties acquired multiple rental properties in several states, including a Fort Worth house purchased in 2018. That property was eventually rented to their adult daughter while she attended TCU, and the parties frequently traveled to Fort Worth for football games and stayed there.

The factual dispute centered on Shannon’s relationship to Texas during the months before suit. Chris contended that Shannon had sufficiently relocated to Tarrant County to satisfy Section 6.301. Shannon contended that she remained a Colorado resident, that her time in Fort Worth was temporary, and that she never formed the necessary intent to make Texas her fixed and permanent home. The record reflected disputes about when Shannon first came to Fort Worth in 2023, how long she stayed, why she came, whether the move was connected to marital discord, and whether she actually relocated or merely stayed intermittently while the parties continued to work on the marriage and travel together.

The timeline mattered. Shannon went to Fort Worth in or around August 2023, but the parties continued marital efforts through the fall and continued returning to Colorado. After a falling out in late December 2023, Shannon again drove to Fort Worth on December 21. Chris filed for divorce in Tarrant County on March 21, 2024, and later filed an amended petition on June 21, 2024. Shannon challenged the suit through a special appearance and plea to the jurisdiction, asserting that she did not meet the statutory qualifications under Section 6.301. Although a visiting judge initially denied the challenge, the presiding judge later reconsidered the issue, granted the plea, and dismissed the case. The trial court expressly found that Shannon had not been a Texas domiciliary for the required six months and had not been a Tarrant County resident for the required ninety days.

Issues Decided

• Whether a Texas divorce suit may be maintained under Texas Family Code Section 6.301 when neither spouse satisfied the statute’s six-month Texas domicile requirement and ninety-day county residency requirement at the time suit was filed.
• Whether disputed evidence of temporary stays in Tarrant County, ownership of Texas property, and asserted intent to remain was legally and factually sufficient to establish Shannon as a Texas domiciliary and Tarrant County resident.
• Whether the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the divorce action after finding that the statutory qualifications were not met.

Rules Applied

The court applied Texas Family Code Section 6.301, which provides that a divorce suit may not be maintained unless, at the time suit is filed, either the petitioner or respondent has been:

• a domiciliary of Texas for the preceding six-month period; and
• a resident of the county of suit for the preceding ninety-day period.

The court also relied on settled Texas authority distinguishing domicile from mere presence. The key principles included:

• Domicile requires residence in Texas coupled with intent to make Texas a fixed and permanent home.
• County residence under Section 6.301 requires actual, physical, continuous living in the county for the required period, together with a good-faith intent to remain and make that county home, accompanied by some act in execution of that intent.
• Residence and domicile under Section 6.301 are fact questions for the trial court.
• Appellate review is for abuse of discretion, informed by legal- and factual-sufficiency standards.
• When evidence is conflicting, the trial court’s determination stands if supported by substantive and probative evidence.

The opinion specifically invoked authorities such as Powell v. Stover, Mills v. Bartlett, Snyder v. Pitts, Barnard v. Barnard, Alwazzan v. Alwazzan, and Stallworth v. Stallworth.

Application

The court treated the case as a classic Section 6.301 proof problem rather than a technical pleading dispute. Chris’s theory depended on showing that Shannon’s connection to Fort Worth ripened into both Texas domicile and Tarrant County residence before suit was filed. But the record showed substantial evidence that her stays in Texas were temporary and equivocal, not the product of a formed intent to abandon Colorado and establish Texas as her fixed and permanent home.

Several facts supported the trial court’s view. The parties had long lived in Colorado; Chris never lived in Texas; the Fort Worth property was initially a rental occupied by their daughter; and the parties’ pre-suit pattern involved travel to Texas rather than relocation to Texas. Even after Shannon’s earlier 2023 stay in Fort Worth, the parties continued attempting reconciliation, traveling together, and returning to Colorado. That evidence permitted the trial court to treat the August 2023 Texas stay as a temporary absence from Colorado rather than a change in domicile.

The December 21, 2023 move was also insufficient to save the March 21, 2024 filing. Even if the trial court accepted that Shannon was in Fort Worth beginning in late December, that did not satisfy the six-month Texas domicile requirement by March 21. And Section 6.301 requires both six months of Texas domicile and ninety days of county residence. The court emphasized that temporary physical presence, even in a house the parties owned, does not itself prove the required intent. The evidentiary question was not simply where Shannon slept, but whether she had actually formed and acted on the intent to make Texas and Tarrant County home.

As to the June 21, 2024 amended petition, the court again deferred to the trial court’s findings. The trial court found that Shannon’s spring 2024 stay in Tarrant County was temporary and ended before June 21, and that she was not a Texas domiciliary for the six months preceding that amended filing either. Because Section 6.301 qualifications must exist at the time suit is filed, and because the evidence remained disputed, the appellate court asked only whether the trial court had some substantive and probative basis for its findings. It concluded that it did.

The practical significance of the court’s reasoning is that domicile evidence must show continuity and intent, not just access, convenience, or intermittent occupation. Owning Texas real estate, staying there often, having family there, and using the property during marital turmoil may all be relevant, but they are not substitutes for proof of settled intent and actual continuous residence.

Holding

The court held that a divorce suit may not be maintained under Texas Family Code Section 6.301 unless, at the time suit is filed, either spouse was a domiciliary of Texas for the preceding six months and a resident of the county of suit for the preceding ninety days. Those are mandatory statutory qualifications for maintaining the action.

The court further held that temporary presence in Texas, without proof of intent to make Texas a fixed and permanent home and to make the county of suit home, does not satisfy Section 6.301. On this record, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Shannon’s time in Fort Worth was temporary and insufficient to establish the required domicile and county residence.

Finally, the court held that dismissal was proper because neither spouse satisfied Section 6.301 at the relevant filing times. The appellate court therefore affirmed the dismissal of the Tarrant County divorce action.

Practical Application

For Texas family-law litigators, Rullman is a warning against filing first and proving domicile later. In interstate marriages, counsel should treat Section 6.301 as an evidentiary issue that must be developed before filing, not after the other side raises it. This is particularly true in cases involving multiple residences, executive travel, second homes, college-town condos, investment properties, seasonal moves, and marital separations where one spouse “goes to Texas” before deciding whether the move is permanent.

The case also highlights a recurring litigation mistake: conflating physical presence with domicile. A client may be staying in Texas, receiving mail here, or occupying a Texas property, but unless counsel can prove the requisite intent and continuity, the case is exposed to dismissal. That exposure can be expensive. Here, the parties litigated well beyond initial pleadings before the case was ultimately dismissed.

Strategically, Rullman should change how practitioners build the front end of a case:

• Verify the six-month and ninety-day periods backward from the filing date, not from separation, move-out, or consultation dates.
• Develop objective evidence of intent before filing, including acts consistent with making Texas home.
• Expect the opposing party to frame the Texas stay as temporary, tactical, or reconciliation-driven.
• Preserve the distinction between:
• Texas domicile for divorce under Section 6.301;
• personal-jurisdiction questions;
• and UCCJEA home-state jurisdiction in SAPCR cases.

For property litigation, this case is especially important in affluent or multi-state marriages. Ownership of Texas property may create an intuitive but false sense that Texas is available as a divorce forum. Rullman makes clear that real-estate ownership and repeated use of the property are merely pieces of evidence, not a substitute for domicile. If your client wants Texas as the forum for divorce and property division, you need evidence showing the property was not simply an asset or a temporary refuge, but part of a real move establishing home.

Checklists

Pre-Filing Domicile Audit

• Identify which spouse is alleged to satisfy Section 6.301.
• Calculate the six-month Texas domicile period backward from the intended filing date.
• Calculate the ninety-day county residence period backward from the intended filing date.
• Confirm actual physical presence in the county during the relevant period.
• Evaluate whether the client can prove intent to make Texas a fixed and permanent home.
• Evaluate whether the client can prove intent to make the county of suit home.
• Determine whether any absences from Texas undermine continuity.
• Assess whether the move to Texas was tentative, seasonal, safety-driven, reconciliation-related, or expressly temporary.

Evidence to Establish Domicile and County Residence

• Texas driver’s license or state identification issued before filing.
• Voter registration in Texas.
• Lease, deed, or occupancy evidence showing actual living arrangements.
• Utility bills in the client’s name for the Texas residence.
• Employment records reflecting Texas-based work or transfer.
• School enrollment records for children, if applicable.
• Texas mailing address consistently used with banks, insurers, and tax authorities.
• Change-of-address records with USPS.
• Testimony and documents showing abandonment of the prior state as home.
• Statements, texts, emails, or affidavits showing intent to remain in Texas permanently.
• Acts consistent with making the county home, not merely visiting or sheltering there.

Red Flags That Suggest a Temporary Stay

• Continued ownership and occupancy of a primary home in another state.
• Continued return trips to the prior state for marital reconciliation.
• Travel patterns inconsistent with a fixed move.
• Texas property being used primarily as a rental, vacation property, or family convenience property.
• No transfer of licenses, voting, banking, employment, or official records to Texas.
• Communications describing the Texas stay as temporary, trial, or contingent.
• Filing in Texas before the statutory clock fully runs.
• Reliance on a spouse’s uncertain intent rather than objective acts.

How to Defend Against a Questionable Texas Filing

• Plead Section 6.301 failure early and specifically.
• Develop a detailed timeline of all physical presence in and out of Texas.
• Obtain records showing continued ties to the prior state.
• Use discovery to pin down the alleged move date and the acts supposedly evidencing intent.
• Highlight evidence that the Texas property was merely an available place to stay.
• Emphasize reconciliation efforts and return travel to the prior marital home.
• Request findings of fact and conclusions of law on domicile and county residence.
• Preserve legal- and factual-sufficiency arguments within the abuse-of-discretion framework.

How to Avoid the Result Suffered by the Filing Party

• Do not assume property ownership in Texas is enough.
• Do not rely solely on the opposing spouse’s temporary presence in Texas.
• Do not file until the six-month and ninety-day periods are clearly satisfied.
• Do not ignore contradictory evidence showing the prior state remained home.
• Do not treat an amended petition as a cure-all without confirming the statutory periods are met as of that filing.
• Do build a documentary record of intent before filing.
• Do consider whether another state is the cleaner forum if Texas qualification is doubtful.

Citation

Rullman v. Rullman, No. 02-25-00370-CV, memorandum opinion (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 13, 2026, no pet.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~32ae73a2-94e3-4c96-a24d-7a8d64cde452~~