How have courts interpreted the term "residence" in the context of a Cal-Vet contract?

5 The word "residence" is a term with no definite meaning, generally requiring construction in regard to the particular statute or purpose in which it is employed. (See In re Morelli (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 819, 830, 91 Cal.Rptr. 72.) It is frequently considered to be synonymous with "domicile." (See Elec.Code 200, subd. (a); Burt v. Scarborough (1961) 56 Cal.2d 817, 820, 17 Cal.Rptr. 146, 366 P.2d 498 (construing "residence" for venue purposes).) When the word "residence" is qualified by such words as "actual" or "bona fide" it is used in a sense which would preclude a person from establishing more than one residence, and the residence must be the principal place of residence. (See the authorities discussed supra, and see Burt v. Scarborough, supra, 56 Cal.2d at p. 820, 17 Cal.Rptr. 146, 366 P.2d 498.)

6 While the result is the same the procedure is different. (Eisley v. Mohan (1948) 31 Cal.2d 637, 644, 192 P.2d 5.) The federal government enforces the requirement of actual residency by withholding beneficial title until all prerequisites have been fulfilled (ibid.), while the Act enforces the requirement of actual residency by providing for cancellation of the Cal-Vet contract in the event conditions are not fulfilled. ( 987.77.) This difference in procedures does not indicate that the requirement of actual residency is not identical in each case.