Key Takeaways

1. Mas v. Perry is a foundational federal case clarifying the requirements for diversity jurisdiction, particularly when one party is a foreign national and the other is a U.S. citizen with an ambiguous domicile.
2. The court’s analysis of domicile and citizenship in the context of married couples and students provides critical guidance for future jurisdictional questions in federal courts.
3. The case also stands as an important precedent regarding invasion of privacy and the scope of damages recoverable for such torts under federal law.

Introduction

The case of Mas v. Perry, 492 F.2d 1242 (5th Cir. 1974), is a landmark decision in United States federal civil procedure and privacy law. At its heart, the case involves a married couple—Jean Paul Mas, a French national, and Judy Mas, a citizen of Mississippi—who rented an apartment in Louisiana from Oliver H. Perry. After discovering that Perry had installed two-way mirrors in their apartment, the Mases sued for invasion of privacy. The federal court initially awarded substantial damages to both plaintiffs. However, the case’s true significance lies in its exploration of diversity jurisdiction—a cornerstone of federal court authority—and the legal definitions of citizenship and domicile. The Fifth Circuit’s decision clarified important aspects of these doctrines, shaping how courts approach similar questions to this day.

This guide provides a comprehensive overview of Mas v. Perry, including its factual background, procedural history, legal issues, court reasoning, and lasting impact. For attorneys and law students, understanding this case is essential for navigating the complexities of federal jurisdiction and privacy law.

Factual Background

The Parties

Jean Paul Mas, a French national, and Judy Mas, a United States citizen from Mississippi, were both graduate students at Louisiana State University (LSU). After their marriage in Mississippi, they returned to Baton Rouge, Louisiana, where they rented an apartment from Oliver H. Perry, a Louisiana citizen.

The Incident

Shortly after moving in, the Mases discovered that Perry had clandestinely installed two-way mirrors in their apartment. These mirrors allowed Perry to observe the couple in the privacy of their home without their knowledge or consent. This egregious invasion prompted the Mases to file a lawsuit against Perry, alleging a violation of their right to privacy.

The Lawsuit

The Mases brought their case in federal court, seeking damages for the invasion of privacy. The jury awarded $5,000 to Mr. Mas and $15,000 to Mrs. Mas. Perry appealed, challenging both the award and the federal court’s jurisdiction over the case.

Procedural History

Trial Court Proceedings

The initial trial was held in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. The court found in favor of the Mases, awarding them monetary damages for the harm suffered as a result of Perry’s actions.

Appeal to the Fifth Circuit

Oliver H. Perry appealed the verdict to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. His primary argument was that the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the requirements for diversity jurisdiction were not met. Specifically, Perry contended that there was not complete diversity between the parties, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

The Fifth Circuit’s Review

The Fifth Circuit’s analysis focused on whether the parties were indeed “citizens of different states” or, in the case of Mr. Mas, a “citizen or subject of a foreign state,” as required for diversity jurisdiction under federal law. The court’s ruling on these points would have significant implications for the outcome of the case and for the broader understanding of federal jurisdiction.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Diversity Jurisdiction

The central legal issue in Mas v. Perry was whether the federal court had proper subject matter jurisdiction under the doctrine of diversity jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal courts may hear cases “between citizens of different states” or between “a citizen of a state and a citizen or subject of a foreign state,” provided the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 (now; at the time, the threshold was lower).

Key Questions

• Was Mr. Mas, as a French national residing in Louisiana, a “citizen or subject of a foreign state” for purposes of diversity jurisdiction?
• Was Mrs. Mas, a U.S. citizen and Mississippi native, still domiciled in Mississippi, or had she become domiciled in Louisiana by virtue of her marriage and relocation?
• Did the presence of both spouses in the same suit destroy or preserve diversity jurisdiction?

2. Domicile and Citizenship

The case also required the court to examine the concepts of domicile and citizenship—terms that, while related, have distinct meanings in federal law. The court had to determine the domicile of each party at the time the lawsuit was filed, as this would affect whether diversity jurisdiction existed.

3. Invasion of Privacy

Finally, the court addressed the substantive legal claim of invasion of privacy. The Mases alleged that Perry’s installation of two-way mirrors constituted an actionable tort under Louisiana law.

Court’s Analysis and Reasoning

Diversity Jurisdiction: The Basics

Diversity jurisdiction is a foundational principle in U.S. federal courts, designed to provide a neutral forum for parties from different states or countries. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, diversity must be “complete” — meaning no plaintiff can share state citizenship with any defendant.

Mr. Mas: Citizenship of a Foreign National

The court found that Mr. Mas, although residing in Louisiana, was a citizen of France and had not become a naturalized U.S. citizen. Under federal law, an alien who is lawfully residing in the U.S. remains a citizen of their country of origin until naturalization. Therefore, Mr. Mas qualified as a “citizen or subject of a foreign state” for diversity purposes.

Mrs. Mas: Domicile of a U.S. Citizen

Mrs. Mas, a U.S. citizen, was born and raised in Mississippi. The question was whether her domicile had changed to Louisiana due to her marriage and current residence. The court reaffirmed the principle that domicile is determined by two factors: (1) physical presence in a place, and (2) intent to remain there indefinitely. The court found that Mrs. Mas, though living in Louisiana for graduate studies, had not formed the intent to remain in Louisiana permanently. Thus, her domicile (and citizenship for diversity purposes) remained Mississippi.

Married Women and Domicile

A significant aspect of the court’s analysis was its rejection of the archaic doctrine that a married woman automatically takes her husband’s domicile. Instead, the court held that a married woman may have a domicile distinct from her husband’s, depending on her own intent and circumstances. This was an important affirmation of women’s legal independence.

Complete Diversity

The court concluded that complete diversity existed: Mr. Mas was a citizen of France, Mrs. Mas was a citizen of Mississippi, and Perry was a citizen of Louisiana. Thus, the federal court had proper subject matter jurisdiction.

Invasion of Privacy

On the merits, the court found that Perry’s conduct—installing two-way mirrors to observe the Mases—constituted an egregious invasion of privacy under Louisiana law. The jury’s award of damages was upheld, reflecting the seriousness of the harm suffered.

Impact and Precedential Value

Clarification of Diversity Jurisdiction

Mas v. Perry is frequently cited for its clear articulation of the rules governing diversity jurisdiction and domicile. The case stands for the proposition that:

• A person’s domicile is determined by their physical presence and intent to remain, not merely by their marital status or temporary residence.
• An alien lawfully residing in the U.S. remains a citizen or subject of their country of origin until naturalization.
• Married women have independent domiciles for jurisdictional purposes.

This clarity has guided courts in subsequent cases involving students, foreign nationals, and married couples.

Gender Equality in Domicile Determination

The court’s explicit rejection of the automatic transfer of a wife’s domicile to that of her husband marked a progressive step towards gender equality in federal jurisdictional analysis. This aspect of the decision is often highlighted in legal scholarship and cited in cases involving the domicile of married women.

Privacy Law

The case also serves as an early example of federal courts recognizing and awarding damages for invasion of privacy. While the legal landscape has evolved, Mas v. Perry remains a touchstone for privacy torts in the context of landlord-tenant relationships.

Practical Implications for Legal Practitioners

Assessing Diversity Jurisdiction

Attorneys should carefully assess the domicile and citizenship of all parties before filing in federal court. Mas v. Perry demonstrates that:

• Temporary residence, such as for educational purposes, does not necessarily change a person’s domicile.
• The intent to remain indefinitely is crucial in determining domicile.
• The citizenship of foreign nationals is determined by their country of origin until they become naturalized U.S. citizens.

Drafting Complaints and Pleadings

When drafting complaints, it is essential to plead facts that establish the domicile and citizenship of each party. Failure to do so may result in dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Privacy Claims in Landlord-Tenant Disputes

Landlords who intrude upon tenants’ privacy may face significant liability. The facts of Mas v. Perry serve as a cautionary tale for property owners and managers regarding the boundaries of permissible conduct.

Related Case Law and Statutory Provisions

28 U.S.C. § 1332

The relevant statutory authority for diversity jurisdiction is 28 U.S.C. § 1332. This statute sets forth the requirements for federal court jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.

Subsequent Cases

Mas v. Perry has been cited extensively in subsequent decisions involving diversity jurisdiction, domicile, and privacy torts. For example, courts have drawn on its reasoning in cases involving students, military personnel, and expatriates.

Official Case Documents

• Mas v. Perry, 492 F.2d 1242 (5th Cir. 1974) - Justia Law
• Mas v. Perry - Quimbee Case Summary

Key Doctrines Explained

Domicile

Domicile is a legal term referring to the place where a person has their permanent home and to which they intend to return. It is distinct from mere residence, which can be temporary. For purposes of federal jurisdiction, a person’s domicile determines their state citizenship.

Citizenship

For U.S. citizens, citizenship is typically based on domicile. For foreign nationals, citizenship is determined by their country of origin until they are naturalized.

Invasion of Privacy

Invasion of privacy is a tort recognized under state law, protecting individuals from unwarranted intrusions into their private affairs. Mas v. Perry is a classic example of a landlord’s violation of this right.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does marriage automatically change a person’s domicile?

No. As clarified in Mas v. Perry, marriage does not automatically alter a person’s domicile. Each spouse’s domicile is determined by their own intent and circumstances.

Can a student’s domicile change while attending school in another state?

Not necessarily. Attendance at a university in another state, without the intent to remain there indefinitely, does not change a student’s domicile for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.

Are foreign nationals always considered citizens of their home country for diversity jurisdiction?

Yes, until they become naturalized U.S. citizens, foreign nationals are considered citizens or subjects of their country of origin.

Conclusion

Mas v. Perry remains a cornerstone of federal civil procedure and privacy law. Its careful analysis of diversity jurisdiction, domicile, and privacy rights continues to inform legal practice and judicial decision-making. For attorneys, law students, and scholars, the case underscores the importance of precise factual pleading and a nuanced understanding of jurisdictional rules.

For more in-depth legal research and analysis, visit Counsel Stack.

Disclaimer: This guide is intended as a general overview of Mas v. Perry and related legal principles. It does not constitute legal advice. Jurisdictional and privacy law issues can be complex and fact-specific; consult a qualified attorney for guidance on particular cases.