IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF FREDERICK AND OKSANA SHADDOCK

Motion for Order of Dismissal of Divorce Based On
New Information: Plaintiff Has DC Drivers License

Plaintiff Frederick Shaddock moves the Court for an order dismissing this action because of new information relevant to the requirements of the Iowa Code, Dissolution of Marriage and Domestic Relations, in particular section §598.9, have not been met.

Upon consultation with an experienced attorney in Washington DC, his first question was one that no one has yet asked in Iowa.  Where is the Plaintiff's Drivers License?  This obvious requirement for residency has been overlooked by all. 

Plaintiff, Frederick Shaddock, has maintained a Washington DC Drivers License since 10-10-2008. This case was filed on September 18 2009, almost a year later. 

Contrary to his belief at the time, Plaintiff was therefore not a resident of the state of Iowa at the time of filing of the divorce.  The DC Drivers License submitted along with this Motion as evidence.

The Court is asked to note that the Issue Date was 10-10-2008. This can be further verified by the District of Columbia Department of Motor Vehicles.

Also, the Plaintiff and Respondent filed as a Joint Married Couple for taxes with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in Washington DC, not Iowa, in 2008, 2009, and 2010. Plaintiff and Respondent are presently living together  working in DC, and plan to file in the same way in DC by April 2011.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff did not vote in the last election in the state of Iowa.  He has only voted in DC.

In fact Plaintiff did not fulfill any of the usual requirements for change of residency to Iowa. It is inappropriate that this case is being held in Iowa, and cannot be justified to the citizens and taxpayers of Iowa.

Therefore Plaintiff was actually still a citizen of Washington DC at the time of the filing for divorce. This license has remained active, even to this date. At no time relevant to this case did he have an Iowa drivers license.

Therefore, the residency requirement was NOT met, and this case should be immediately dismissed, to avoid any further utilization of resources on a case for a non-resident.

Although the Plaintiff owned real estate in both Fairfield Iowa and Washington DC, ownership of property is not the criterion for residency. One cannot be an official resident of both states simultaneously. We must therefore look to the Drivers License as the primary and official measure of residency.

The Washington DC Family Court has ample resources and staff to process a new divorce case, should either the Plaintiff or Respondent determine to do so.

Had the Plaintiff hired an attorney, instead of representing himself Pro Se, this mistake could have been prevented, because any competent attorney would have asked the Plaintiff which state his the Drivers License is from, and advised the Plaintiff to file for divorce in that jurisdiction.

Although the Plaintiff preferred Iowa to DC, at the time of filing for divorce, that alone is not sufficient basis for residency. Official government issued documents are the basis, such as the drivers license. As it turned out, his preferences changed, due to the better job market in Washington DC. Regardless, whereas many people prefer the state of Hawaii, that preference does not make them a resident there.

The file for this divorce case has already become unusually large, with every sign of becoming much larger, and a great burden to the Clerk of Court. The travel requirements of flying to DC for the numerous hearings will be a great financial burden for the Plaintiff and Respondent.

Washington DC is obviously the appropriate venue for this divorce case between DC citizens, which is irrelevant, and only a financial burden to the citizens of Iowa. It is a waste of Iowa resources that Iowa taxpayers paid for, and should go towards the benefit of its citizens.

Plaintiff respectfully regrets and apologizes for this past error of mistaken residency, and for the time spent on this case by the state of Iowa.

Furthermore, as if that is not enough, according to sections §598.5(7) and §598.17 of the Iowa Code, the grounds for divorce stipulate that there must be a breakdown of the marriage such that there is no reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved.  Plaintiff and Respondent continue to cohabit, even after the Motion for Dismissal on April 26, 2010. 

Therefore, the Plaintiff asks the Court to put an end to the waste of Iowa resources on a case between DC citizens, and dismiss this case. 

Sincerely,

Frederick Shaddock
Plaintiff, Pro Se
490 N Street, SW  Apt. 400
Washington, DC  20024
202-829-4444

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 21st day of June 2010, a copy of the foregoing document was sent via first-class postage prepaid to J. Terrence Denefe, 104 South Court Street, Ottumwa, Iowa 52501, as well as email to tdenefe@lisco.com and fax to 641-683-3597.

______________________________
Frederick Shaddock, Pro Se

POINTS OF AUTHORITY

Iowa Code

§ 598.5 The petition for dissolution of marriage shall:
...
7. Allege that there has been a breakdown of the marriage relationship to the extent that the legitimate objects of matrimony have been destroyed and there remains no reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved.

§ 598.2 Jurisdiction and venue.  (You can file for divorce in Iowa if at least one spouse resides in the state of Iowa.)

§ 598.6  Additional contents.
Except where the respondent is a resident of this state and is served by personal service, the petition for dissolution of marriage, in addition to setting forth the information required by section 598.5, must state that the petitioner has been for the last year a resident of the state,

§ 598.9 Residence--failure of proof. If the averments as to residence are not fully proved, the hearing shall proceed no further, and the action be dismissed by the court.

§ 598.17  Dissolution of marriage--evidence.
A decree dissolving the marriage may be entered when the court is satisfied from the evidence presented that there has been a breakdown of the marriage relationship to the extent that the legitimate objects of matrimony have been destroyed and there remains no reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved.

District of Columbia Code

§ 16-904. Grounds for divorce, legal separation, and annulment.
(a) A divorce from the bonds of marriage may be granted if:
(1) both parties to the marriage have mutually and voluntarily lived separate and apart without cohabitation for a period of six months next preceding the commencement of the action;
(2) both parties to the marriage have lived separate and apart without cohabitation for a period of one year next preceding the commencement of the action.
...
(c) For purposes of subsections (1) and (2) of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, parties who have pursued separate lives, sharing neither bed nor board, shall be deemed to have lived separate and apart from one another even though:
(1) they reside under the same roof; or
(2) the separation is pursuant to an order of a court.

______________________________
Frederick Shaddock, Pro Se
Plaintiff, Pro Se
490 N Street, SW  Apt. 400
Washington, DC  20024
202-829-4444