Can an out-of-state student living in a hotel or dorm in Texas use that address to get a Texas commercial driver's license?

Plain-English summary

The Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety asked whether a hotel, motel, or dormitory address falls within the meaning of "domicile" for issuing a commercial driver's license under Transportation Code section 522.022. The question grew out of a recurring fact pattern: students from outside Texas come to commercial driving training centers in the state for a month-long course, apply for a Texas commercial learning permit and then a commercial driver's license using a hotel or school dorm address, and a percentage of them move to another state right after and trade the Texas license for one from that state.

The Attorney General concluded that, in particular cases, such an address may fall within the statutory definition of domicile. The Transportation Code lets the Department issue a commercial driver's license (other than a nonresident license) only to a person who has a domicile in this state, and it defines domicile as the place where a person has the person's true, fixed, and permanent home and principal residence and to which the person intends to return whenever absent. That tracks the common-law definition: an actual residence plus the intent to make it the permanent home.

The opinion reasoned that what matters is physical presence combined with intent, not the kind of building. Some people are in fact permanent residents of hotels and motels, and by analogy college students living in dormitories routinely register to vote from those addresses, because the Election Code defines residence as domicile in the same way. The opinion drew on the Texas Supreme Court's statement that neither bodily presence alone nor intent alone creates residence, but when the two coincide the residence is fixed, with no specific minimum length of presence. So a person who moves to Texas to attend a training center intending to find work and make Texas home is a Texas domiciliary regardless of housing type. The opinion allowed that a short-term hotel address might be some evidence of no intent to remain, but it held that a conclusive presumption of no domicile based solely on the nature of the address is impermissible.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2002. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later Attorney General opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

What the opinion meant for those who asked

The Department of Public Safety (what the opinion held): The opinion held that the Department could not adopt a conclusive presumption that an applicant has no Texas domicile based solely on a hotel, motel, or dormitory address. Domicile is a factual determination turning on physical presence plus intent to remain; the type of address may be weighed as evidence of intent, but it is not by itself determinative.

Out-of-state students at Texas driving schools (what the opinion held for them): The opinion held that a student living at a hotel or school dorm address could qualify as a Texas domiciliary for a commercial driver's license if the student was actually present in Texas and intended to make Texas a permanent home. The address alone would not disqualify the applicant, though the Department could still assess intent from the surrounding facts.

Common questions

Can a hotel or dorm address be used to get a Texas commercial driver's license?
The opinion held that it can, in particular cases. Domicile depends on actual physical presence in Texas plus an intent to make Texas a permanent home, not on the type of housing.

Does living in a hotel automatically mean you have no Texas domicile?
No. The opinion held that the Department may not treat the nature of the address as conclusive proof of no domicile. A short-term hotel address might be some evidence of no intent to remain, but it cannot be the sole, conclusive basis for denial.

What counts as evidence of intent to make Texas home?
The opinion pointed to factors courts use, such as where a person exercises civil and political rights, pays taxes, owns property, holds licenses, keeps bank accounts, belongs to clubs and churches, has a job or business, and maintains a home for the family.

How does this connect to voter registration?
The opinion drew the analogy that students living in dormitories routinely register to vote from those addresses, because the Election Code defines residence as domicile in the same way the Transportation Code does. The same logic supports treating a dorm or hotel resident as a possible domiciliary.

Background and statutory framework

Transportation Code section 522.022(1) provides that the Department may not issue a commercial driver's license, other than a nonresident license, to a person unless the person has a domicile in this state. Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 522.022(1) (Vernon 1999). Section 522.003(10) defines "domicile" for chapter 522 as the place where a person has the person's true, fixed, and permanent home and principal residence and to which the person intends to return whenever absent. Id. § 522.003(10). That statutory definition accords with the common-law elements of domicile, an actual residence and the intent to make it the permanent home. Cauble v. Gray, 604 S.W.2d 197, 198 (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 1979, no writ).

The opinion reasoned from analogy to voter registration, where the Election Code defines residence as domicile, "one's home and fixed place of habitation to which he intends to return after any temporary absence." Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 1.015(a) (Vernon 1986). A three-judge federal panel recognized that students residing in dormitories may treat those places as residences and quoted the Texas Supreme Court that "[n]either bodily presence alone nor intention alone will suffice to create the residence, but when the two coincide at that moment the residence is fixed and determined. There is no specific length of time for the bodily presence to continue." United States v. State of Texas, 445 F. Supp. 1245, 1257 (S.D. Tex. 1978) (quoting Mills v. Bartlett, 377 S.W.2d 636, 637 (Tex. 1964)), aff'd, 439 U.S. 1105 (1979). Evidence of intent to establish domicile may include where a person exercises civil and political rights, pays taxes, owns real and personal property, holds driver's and other licenses, maintains bank accounts, belongs to clubs and churches, has places of business or employment, and maintains a home for the family. Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 251 (5th Cir. 1996). On that basis the opinion held that while a hotel or motel address might be some evidence of no intent to remain, a conclusive presumption of no domicile based solely on the address is impermissible.

Citations

Statutes:

• Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 522.022(1) (Vernon 1999); § 522.003(10)
• Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 1.015(a) (Vernon 1986)

Cases:

• Cauble v. Gray, 604 S.W.2d 197, 198 (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 1979, no writ)
• United States v. State of Texas, 445 F. Supp. 1245 (S.D. Tex. 1978), aff'd, 439 U.S. 1105 (1979)
• Mills v. Bartlett, 377 S.W.2d 636, 637 (Tex. 1964)
• Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 251 (5th Cir. 1996)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/john-cornyn/jc-0520
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2002/jc0520.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL - STATE OF TEXAS
JOHN CORNYN

June 28, 2002

Mr. Thomas A. Davis, Jr. Opinion No. JC-0520
Director
Texas Department of Public Safety Re: Whether a hotel, motel, or dormitory is
5805 North Lamar Boulevard, Box 4087 within the meaning of "domicile" for the
Austin, Texas 78773-0001 purposes of Transportation Code section
522.022 (RQ-0490-JC)

Dear Mr. Davis:

You seek an opinion from this office regarding the domicile provision of Transportation Code section 522.022(1) for the issuance of a commercial driver's license ("CDL"). In particular, you ask "if addresses, given by students coming into Texas from out of state to attend commercial driving training centers in Texas, fall within the definition of 'domicile'." We conclude that, in particular cases, such addresses may fall within the statutory definition of domicile. While other factors may be considered in the factual determination of what constitutes domicile, the presentation of an address such as that of a hotel or dorm-type facility is not conclusive evidence that a license applicant does not have a Texas domicile.

Section 522.022 of the Transportation Code reads in relevant part:

            The department may not issue a commercial driver's license other than a nonresident license to a person unless the person:

                    (1) has a domicile in this state.

TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 522.022(1) (Vernon 1999).

For the purposes of chapter 522 of the Transportation Code, "domicile" is defined as

            the place where a person has the person's true, fixed and permanent home and principal residence and to which the person intends to return whenever absent.

Id. § 522.003(10). This definition accords with the general common law definition of domicile: "The elements . . . of 'domicile' are: (1) an actual residence; and (2) the intent to make it the permanent home." Cauble v. Gray, 604 S.W.2d 197, 198 (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 1979, no writ).

As you explain the situation giving rise to your request, students from outside Texas come to commercial driving training centers in the state to take a month-long training course. While in the state, these students apply for Texas commercial driver's learning permits, and eventually for commercial driver's licenses. "The address presented by the student during the application process is often either a hotel or dorm type facility provided by the school. A certain percentage of these applicants move to another state immediately or shortly after obtaining a Texas CDL and exchange it for a CDL from that other state." Request Letter, supra at 1. It is in the light of these facts that you ask whether "hotels, motels, or dormitories [are] 'domiciles'." See id.

A certain number of people in Texas are in fact permanent residents of hotels and motels, as you have pointed out. See id. at 2. Moreover, if we consider the analogous question of voter registration, college students residing in dormitories routinely register to vote from such addresses. See United States v. State of Texas, 445 F. Supp. 1245 (S.D. Tex. 1978), aff'd, 439 U.S. 1105 (1979). Such places are for them residences, as the court in U.S. v. Texas recognized, and under the terms of section 1.015(a) of the Election Code, residence "means domicile, that is, one's home and fixed place of habitation to which he intends to return after any temporary absence." TEX. ELEC. CODE ANN. § 1.015(a) (Vernon 1986); cf. TEX. TRANSP. CODE ANN. § 522.003(10). In U.S. v. Texas, the three-judge panel quoted in a related context what it regarded as the "significant language" of the Texas Supreme Court with regard to student residence:

            Neither bodily presence alone nor intention alone will suffice to create the residence, but when the two coincide at that moment the residence is fixed and determined. There is no specific length of time for the bodily presence to continue.

Texas, 445 F. Supp. at 1257 (quoting Mills v. Bartlett, 377 S.W.2d 636, 637 (Tex. 1964)) (emphasis added).

Your letter acknowledges that "persons can move into Texas to attend a commercial driver training center with the intent of finding employment here and making Texas their home." Request Letter, supra at 1-2. From the standpoint of both the common law and the definition provided by section 522.003 of the Transportation Code, such persons are Texas domiciliaries, no matter what sort of housing in which they may reside. Evidence of an intent to establish domicile may include such factors as where a person "exercises civil and political rights, pays taxes, owns real and personal property, has driver's and other licenses, maintains bank accounts, belongs to clubs and churches, has places of business or employment, and maintains a home for his family." Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 251 (5th Cir. 1996). While an address such as a hotel or motel, which are typically places of short-term accommodation, might constitute some evidence that there is no intent to remain, a conclusive presumption that there is no bona fide domicile based solely on the nature of the address provided is impermissible.

                                   SUMMARY

            In particular cases, an address such as that of a motel, hotel, or dormitory may constitute a domicile for the purposes of Transportation Code section 522.022(1), regarding the issuance of a Texas commercial driver's license. An address alone is not determinative of Texas domicile, the elements of which are a physical presence within Texas and an intent to remain and make the state a permanent home.

                                        Very truly yours,

                                        JOHN CORNYN
                                        Attorney General of Texas

HOWARD G. BALDWIN, JR.
First Assistant Attorney General

NANCY FULLER
Deputy Attorney General - General Counsel

SUSAN DENMON GUSKY
Chair, Opinion Committee

James E. Tourtelott
Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee

[1] Letter from Thomas A. Davis, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Public Safety, to Honorable John Cornyn, Texas Attorney General (Jan. 3, 2002) (on file with Opinion Committee) [hereinafter Request Letter].