Aaron Lilly feels like a Utahn.

He was born here and raised here. He says he votes here and pays taxes here. But for the moment, Utah’s courts say the U.S. Marine doesn’t belong here — not legally, at least.

In a decision handed down in a child support case involving Lilly, his ex-wife and their daughter, 3rd District Court Commissioner Patrick Casey declined to review the terms of the Lillys’ divorce decree. He ruled that Lilly — a U.S. Marine stationed in California — still resides there, where the divorce was filed.

"Nothing heard by the court indicates that Mr. Lilly resides in Utah," Casey ruled in September, saying Utah simply does not have jurisdiction.

Lilly’s attorney, Mark Wiser, believes the ruling punishes his client for serving his nation as a Marine. He’s seeking a new hearing on the issue, and Judge Advocates from both the Air Force and Marine Corps are expected to file briefs, as a ruling may have implications for other service members.

"Mister Lilly enlisted in Utah, plans to return to Utah, has been paying Utah state taxes every year since enlistment, and should not be discriminated against due to his military service," Wiser said.

Lilly acknowledges he wants the case heard in Utah’s courts because it might result in reduced child support payments. He believes that’s fair because his ex-wife and their daughter now live in Utah, where the cost of living is substantially lower than it is in California, where all resided when the divorce was settled.

"There have been eight states, six countries, and four continents that I’ve called home, but I’ve always been a resident of Utah," said Lilly, a 1994 graduate of Kearns High School.

His wife’s attorney did not comment.

Lilly’s conflict comes at the intersection of two struggles often associated with military life — divorce and residency — that are eased only slightly by a patchwork of federal and military regulations.

Many of those regulations can be found in the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, a World War II-era set of laws recently updated to be more relevant. Under that act, people such as Lilly may maintain one home of residence — often the place where they grew up — regardless of where military orders send them. The law applies to things like voting and paying taxes, but Wiser believes it and other regulations should apply to access to state courts.

After all, Wiser noted, Lilly’s taxes helped pay for a court in Utah in which, for the moment, he has no standing.

John Carter thinks the patchwork could have a few stronger stitches. The Texas congressman, whose district includes the Army’s Fort Hood, is sponsoring the Military Spouses Residency Relief Act. The bill would allow those who have "married into the military" to claim the same state of residency as their active duty spouse, regardless of where they are stationed. Among other hassles of moving from place to place, military spouses pay up to $5,000 more annually in state taxes than they would were they permitted to maintain residency in one location.

While Carter’s bill wouldn’t likely have an effect on Lilly’s case, it may help prevent such conflicts by giving military spouses an easier way to maintain similar residency.

———————-

Found in the comments section by Lilly’s attorney Mark Wiser:

I’m the attorney in this case. The issue has nothing to do with child support payments. Mr. Lilly has always paid his support and visits with his children. The issue is since the Mother, Child, and Father are all Utah residents, why is a California court hearing this case? As a Serviceman, you are entitled to keep your original residency of the State you enlisted from, which for Mr. Lilly is Utah. However, Utah is the only state that is treating Mr. Lilly as if he resides in California, when he has a Utah Driver’s License, pays Utah Taxes, has a house in Utah, and his family lives in Utah. Just because he is working in California due to military orders does not make him a California resident for court purposes. He should be treated as a resident of Utah. Approximately 17 states that have heard this type of case before have all ruled that a military person is a resident of the state he enlisted from, unless he/she changes it. Mr. Lilly did not. However, Utah is the only state that is trying to say just because you got transferred from Utah to California, you must now be a California resident. Utah is using a "Physical Presence" Test, and instead, Utah should follow other states and treat him as a resident of the State he claims with the military. What if Mr. Lilly was stationed in Iraq, would he be an Iraqi resident? The answer is no, and just because he has been ordered to work at a California military base, does not make him a California resident. No other state in the nation has ruled the way that Utah did in this matter, and this is the first case on this issue to be heard by the Utah courts. The mother has recently asked to increase child support payments using the California child support rates. Mr. Lilly is asking the Utah court to use the Utah child support rates as the mother and child reside in Utah. The Utah court said no, because the father is not a Utah resident, which goes against his rights as a military serviceman to access Utah court.