Appellant Bervie Lawrence brings this appeal following the trial court’s determination that her father, decedent Willie John Balentine, was a resident of Lee County, Arkansas, for purposes of the administration of his estate. For reversal, appellant argues that the trial court erred in determining that the decedent was residing in Lee County at the time of his death. We reverse and remand.
The decedent executed a will in August 1997 in which he acknowledged that at that time he was a resident of Lexa, Arkansas (Lee County), and provided for the distribution of his estate equally among his three children, appellant Bervie Lawrence, appellee Delma Sullivan, and Hugh John Balentine. The will further provided that appellant be appointed executrix. The decedent was born in Stone County, but he moved to Lee County as a young man in 1945. Mr. Balentine raised his family in Lee County and owned a residence there. Due to his declining health, Mr. Balentine moved in with his daughter, appellee Delma Sullivan, at her Lee County home in March 1998. The relationship between Mr. Balentine and his daughter Delma soured during the year he lived with her, and by the spring of 1999, Delma insisted that he move in with appellant at her home in Stone County. He took only a few personal belongings with him because appellant’s house could not accommodate more. Also in the spring of 1999, Mr. Balentine deeded his acreage and house in Lee County to his three children, but he left his truck and the majority of his personal belongings there. Mr. Balentine lived with appellant for more than three years, until he passed away in a Stone County hospital at the age of ninety-two on October 10, 2002.
Appellee filed a petition to probate their father’s will in Lee County and requested to be named the executrix of the estate. Appellant filed a petition to dismiss alleging that their father had not resided in Lee County since 1999 and that Lee County was not the proper venue. After hearing testimony on the matter, the trial court determined that Lee County was the proper venue because (1) Mr. Balentine would have returned to Lee County to live had his health permitted; (2) Mr. Balentine owned no real property in Lee County at his death, but he was to receive rental income from the property; and (3) Mr. Balentine’s household furniture, clothes, quilts, truck and personal bank account remained in Lee County. This appeal followed.
Appellant argues that the trial court failed to recognize the distinction between “residence” and “domicile” under Ark. Code Ann. § 28-40-102 (Repl. 2004). We must agree. Arkansas Code Annotated section 28-40-102(a)(l) (Repl. 2004) provides that the venue for the probate of a will and the administration of a decedent’s estate is the county where the decedent resided at the time of his or her death. Under our case law, the distinction between the terms “domicile” and “residence” is often subtle; however, our supreme court has consistently held that the terms are not synonymous. Leathers v. Warmack, 341 Ark. 609, 19 S.W.3d 27 (2000).
Venue refers to the geographic area, i.e., the county or district, where an action is brought to trial. Meny v. Norris, 340 Ark. 418, 13 S.W.3d 143 (2000). Whether venue is appropriate in a particular county is a matter of law. Two Bros. Farm, Inc. v. Riceland Foods, Inc., 57 Ark. App. 25, 940 S.W.2d 889 (1997). The venue provision of the statute is mandatory. Smith v. Rudolph, 221 Ark. 900, 256 S.W.2d 736 (1953).
Our supreme court explained in Goodwin v. Harrison, 300 Ark. 474, 479, 780 S.W.2d 518 (1989), that “residence” means “the place of actual abode, and not an established domicile or home to which one expects to return and occupy at some future date.” Id. citing to Norton v. Purkins, 203 Ark. 586, 157 S.W.2d 765 (1942). After a thorough discussion of the topic, the Goodwin opinion stated in summation that “the word ‘residency’ as used in the venue statute means just that; it does not mean domicile.” Id. at 481. Residence denotes only the act of residing. See Leathers v. Warmack, 341 Ark. 609, 19 S.W.3d 27 (2000). Although a person can have several residences at one time, only one of those homes can be the person’s domicile. See id.
Domicile is of broader meaning than residence. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co. v. Lawrence, 215 Ark. 718, 223 S.W.2d 823 (1949). Domicile, once acquired, is retained by the mere intention not to change it. Id. Intention is far more relevant to the determination of domicile than residence. See Davis v. Holt, 304 Ark. 619, 804 S.W.2d 362 (1991). For example, a change of residence for the purpose of benefitting one’s health does not usually effect a change of domicile. Oakes v. Oakes, 219 Ark. 363, 242 S.W.2d 128 (1951). The Oakes holding was reiterated by our supreme court in Morris v. Garmon, 285 Ark. 259, 686 S.W.2d 396 (1985), noting the distinction between domicile and residence. In Davis v. Holt, supra, the supreme court attempted to set forth a working definition of “residence” as:
[A]n established abode, fixed permanendy for a time for business or other purpose, although there may be an intent existing all the while to return ... at some time or other to the true domicile; but so difficult is it found to provide a definition to meet all the varying phases of circumstance that the determination of this question may present, that the courts say, that, subject to the general rule, each case must be decided on its own state of facts.
Davis v. Holt, 304 Ark. at 624.
As applied to the present appeal, Mr. Balentine may well have been domiciled in Lee County, but that is not the relevant query. The venue statute mandates that the probate action be heard where the decedent “resided at the time of his death.” The facts were not in dispute, such that there were no credibility determinations to be made. The dissenting judges’ reliance on Morris v. Garmon, supra, is misplaced given that Morris v. Garmon acknowledged that the decedent had changed her residence in order to accommodate her ill health, but had not effected a change in domicile. We agree with the dissenting judges that Morris v. Garmon, supra, is “factually akin” to the present appeal, but its holding supports reversal. We hold that Mr. Balentine may have had more than one residence, but he could only reside in one place at the time of his death, which was in Stone County.
We reverse and remand.
Bird, Vaught, and Roaf, JJ., agree. Gladwin and Neal, JJ., dissent.