In re Residence Hearing Before the Board of Directors, Cumberland Valley School District, T. Toe Thane and Phyu K. Thane,

744 A.2d 1272 (Pa. 2000)

Facts of the Case

In August of 1995, Dr. T. Toe Thane and his wife, Phyu Thane, decided that Mrs. Thane and their two children, Wynn and Lynn, would move from Chambersburg, Franklin County, to Hampden Township, Cumberland County. The reason for this move was for Mrs. Thane, the primary caregiver of the two boys, to be closer to the Harrisburg Academy where Wynn was enrolled as a student. Lynn, who required special education services moved as well and was enrolled in the Cumberland Valley School District.

Mrs. Thane moved into a townhouse along with clothing, furniture, and possessions with the intent of living in the townhouse for seven years while Wynn attended Harrisburg Academy. Mrs. Thane received mail and phone calls from the school district, paid personal taxes to Hampden Township, and changed her voter registration and driver's license address to the Hampden Township townhouse.

In October of 1995, Lynn suffered deterioration in his mental health, and after seeking expert advice, Dr. and Mrs. Thane enrolled him in a private school located in Montgomery County. Under the provisions of IDEA, 20 U.S.C. Sections 1400-1485, the Thanes requested that the Cumberland Valley School District pay the tuition of the private school. The school district denied this request, claiming that Lynn had never been a resident of the school district.

The Thanes appealed to the board of school directors. The school board upheld the decision of the district on the basis that the Cumberland County townhouse was a temporary residence. The Thanes appealed the board's decision to the court of common pleas, which overturned it. The Cumberland Valley School District, in turn, appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which affirmed the decision of the court of common pleas. The district appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Decision of the Court

On January 20, 2000, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Commonwealth Court that affirmed the decision of the court of common pleas, which had reversed the board's decision based on the incorrect interpretation of "resides" as used in the Public School Code of 1949, 24 P. S., Section 13-1302.

Basis of the Decision

The opinion of the court of common pleas, upheld by the Commonwealth Court, analyzed the law regarding residence and domicile as written in the School Code. This analysis concluded that the school board was in error in defining the terms "resident" and "resides."

The Commonwealth Court supported the lower court's decision by citing Lesker Case, 377 Pa. 411, 418, 105 A.2d 376, 380 (1954) and its definitions of habitation, residence, and domicile. It also cited several other cases which defined these terms, including Dupuy Estate, 373 Pa. 423, 427, 96 A.2d 324, 327 (1953) which differentiated residence and domicile.

Mrs. Thane and her two sons were legal residents in the Cumberland Valley School District. The district was in error in its determining the meaning of the term "resides" as used in the Public School Code of 1949, 24 P. S. Section 13-1302.

Written by Carrie Adams and Eugene Bennett, June, 2000