Conflicts of Law

Choice of law in Complex legation

Agent Orange, he had to decide that all states would say that they all need to come under one law BUT more significantly he says that they would agree on what the law was

UCC Borrowing Statue

Always apply the borrowing statute even if the borrowed statute is longer because it treats the borrowing statute as substantive. *Only adopted in 2 state

Insurance Companies: Fault & No Fault

About ½ have Fault and ½ have no fault. This creates a high chance of conflicts. Many K have COL provisions

Loss allocation

Under loss allocation, the locus jurisdiction (location of the tort) has less of an interest in determining the right of recovery when both parties to an action are from another jurisdiction. Apply neimer rules Shirting loss

True conflicts

Where there are two equal conflicting interests, the forum may apply its own law to advance its own policy

Domicile Rule

White v. Tennant Facts: Husband and wife moved from WV to PA, husband spent a lot of time traveling between WV and PA Rule: Where the decedent is domiciled at the time of death controls succession and distribution of his estate (moveables) a) Physical presence/actual residence b) Intent to make domicile

State where the parties reside has the strongest interest

in deterrence and compensation

Reject Revnoi

forum looks only to the internal law of the other state

Incarcerated and Domicile?

generally if no mental capacity → court decides; if criminal issues → often no intent to move.

How is the COL analysis different from personal jurisdiction analysis?

i. COL analysis - 1. which focuses on all elements of a transaction, and not simply on the ∆'s conduct i. Personal jurisdiction which focuses on the threshold solely on the ∆s purposeful connection to the forum minimum contacts

Recognition of Foreign judgements?

i. Foreign judgments aren't entitled to recognition under the FFCC, but they are recognized b/c of comity 1. US courts won't recognize foreign judgments that violate our public policy, involve penal laws, involve family decrees, or if that foreign nation doesn't give conclusive effect to US judgments

Better Law Approach

i. Predictability of Results: (Applies to contract cases, not torts) ii.Maintenance of interstate and international order: (Forum needs some interest) . iii. Simplification of the judicial task (court is fully capable of administering the law of another forum) iv. Advancement of the forum's government interests: a. The forum should not apply law inconsistent with its own concept of fairness and equity. v. Application of the most reasonable and sensible (better) law: Means use the law which makes the best socio-economic sense → "progressive/modern" law. (which law is better)

Under Restatement 1, the court applies the forum's

procedural law

Exceptions to SOL being procedural?

1) Adverse possession 2) Time limit of a condition of right 3) Statute of Repose 4)SOL held "substantive" where liability and remedy created by same statute 5) Harrisburg: if the liability and remedy are provided for in the same statute → SOL is substantive. 6) Wood/Selick: Law completely distinguishes the right then substantive 7) Goodwin: Does the JX call it SOL → whatever they say that is what it is.

Rational behind situs Rule

1) Exclusive control (2) greatest concern to the situs (3) certainty and convenience

Renvoi is always accepted when dealing with (2)

1) Land and divorce Rejected with all other cases

Restatement second

1) Specific Rule See if there are any specific rules indicating which state's law applies to this issue. These specific rules contain rebuttable presumptions that a certain state's law is to apply UNLESS another has a more significant relationship to the issue 2) Characterized whether tort or Contract most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties 3) Apply forums choice of law, if none look at factors

Public policy outlined in

1) constitution, 2) statutes, or 3) common law

To determine whether there is a true conflict

1) look to what the legislative intent of the state is 2)Then look at the facts and determine whether the legislative intent

First Restatement and contracts

1) place of contract 2) Place of performance rule

With the Center of Gravity/ grouping Contact test, what do the Courts ask?

1) what were the laws created to do and 2) what will the impact of choice of law be. 3) Apply the law of the place with the most significant contacts.

Property?

1. A situs court does not have to recognize or enforce the judgment of a non-situs court concerning real property 2. Most situs states recognize the judgments of other states regarding situs land as a matter of comity, not out of constitutionality a. A non-situs court may do indirectly what it may not do directly, as long as it has personal jurisdiction over the party and can use its power of contempt

i. Claim Preclusion (3)

1. Bars further suits on the same cause of action after final judgement 2. Forbids re-litigation 3. Precludes parties from bringing issues at a later stage that could have been argued at the earlier trial

i. Modifiable judgment?

1. Family court order is not entitled to FFC but there are reasons we make them final-ish.

Exception: Public Policy

1. No public policy exception for FFC. 2. (Some courts have recognized, but it is not easily accepted by many).

i. Mistake of Law?

1. No real mistake of law exception

What is substantive Law?

: Generally, rules that define your abstract rights. These are "real world" behaviors.

International: W's v. W's

: In a marital dissolution action involving US citizens no longer living in the US, a Swiss court properly applied local law Here, they were US citizens of the State of Texas → had not lived there for many years and no federal alimony law. Proper to apply Swiss local law

Place of Contracting

A contract is valid by the law of the state where it was made is enforceable everywhere including states where such contracts are statutorily invalid

Public Policy exception

A forum court's refusal to enforce foreign law because the foreign law violates the forum's strong public policy

Borrowing Statutes

Borrowing statutes tell the forum to apply foreign or forum SOL, whichever is shorter

Uniform Commercial Code and COL

Choice of law agreements may be made, absent one, UCC applies to transactions bearing an appropriate relation to the state Default=Forum law Requires reasonable relation between place of choice of law and transaction

Comparative Impairment

Choose the law of the state whose policy would be most impaired if its law were not applied Validity Check: Offshore Rental - This looks to how much a state cares about its policy and whether the law is viewed as antiquated in the forum JX. Quantitative: only a few cases like this will arise so less hurt Qualitative: Tends to say that the more protective law will create the most harm if not applied

Characterized: Levy v. Daniels' U-Drive

Connecticut - Forum - Plaintiff, K, Defendant Law: vicarious liability Massachusetts - Accident Law: No vicarious liability The Connecticut state statute place liability into every rental contract made in Connecticut. Contract cases may be characterized as well Validity: apply the law of the place of formation of the contract Performance: apply the law of where the contract will mostly be performed or where the most benefit will be received.

What is a recognition of judgement?

FFC is basically mandatory res judicata Requires court to accept, without re-litigating a previous judgment of a court

Better law case:Jepson

Facts: : Jepson was injured in AZ while a passenger in a real estate agent's car. Though he had moved to AZ by the time suit was brought. Jepson lived in MN near ND at the time of the accident. Jepson settled with other driver and brought action in MN seeking benefits. The policy covered 7 vehicles, 6 of which were located in ND. The policy was purchased through two ND corporations. It was purchased from a MN agency at ND rates. Jepson wants to stack the policies. MN permits stacking ND does not. Forum was Minnesota. Holding: Characterized as a contract case Factor 1: parties expected ND to apply since the policy was purchased by ND corporations for automobiles registered in ND at ND insurance rates Factor 2;The court found that MN does not have an interest encouraging out-of-staters to seek the benefits of MN, but not have to pay the higher insurance premiums. ND applied Factor 4: · Applies here; predictability and maintenance of interstate comity prevail over MN's governmental interest Factor 5: no persuasively agreed

Lilienthal v. Pratt

Facts: : P (CA) brought action to collect two promissory notes from D (OR) for advancements in joint venture to sell binoculars. D was previous declared a spendthrift by OR court and placed under guardianship. Guardian declared the obligation void when π sought repayment. π was unaware of D's spendthrift/guardianship status. Π argues note was executed and delivered in CA and CA laws do not recognize the disability of a spendthrift and OR court is bound to apply the law of place of making of K. Forum-OR Oregon Interest: 1) K validation 2) continue to encourage Ks in Oregon/with Oregonians 3) protect spendthrifts and families California: 1) Protect California creditors 2) welcome parties to do business and 3) rule of validation.

In re Barrie

Facts: Barrie's will devising real property in Iowa and personal property in Illinois was denied probate in Illinois, but Iowa held that the will was valid holding: Because the land was in Iowa, Iowa law applies under the Situs Rule. Here, there is a full faith and credit clause exception because the state where the land is located is NOT required to treat foreign decrees as valid

DPC case:Home Ins. Co. v. Dick

Facts: D (Texas citizen) brought action against a Mexican company to recover under fire ins. Policy. Π reinsured parts of policy by K w/Mexican corp. π (NY corp) asserts a time bar defense due to the claim being filed more than one year after date of loss. Policy was expressly made subject to Mexican law and covered D's vessel in certain Mexican waters. Premium was paid in Mexico and the loss was payable in the City of Mexico. At time policy was issued, when assigned to D and until after loss D resided in Mexico Holding Here, neither the contract or any of the parties were subject to Texas law at the time the contract was entered or performed, therefore Texas courts cannot apply its law to alter the terms of the contract → violate Due Process

FFC: Bradford Electric Light Co. v. Clapper

Facts: D (Vermont resident) worked for π (Vermont corp) in their principal place of business (Vermont). D was sent to New Hampshire to replace some fuses and was electrocuted. Estate administrator brought CL negligence action in New Hampshire. Forum-NH federal ct Holding: When the litigants in a suit reside in a state different than the forum and that state provides a defense to the cause of action, the forum state must allow the defense to be raised. must recognize Vermont defense

Contact: Haag v. Barnes

Facts: Facts: P (NY) and D (IL) had a child out of wedlock. D convinced P to give birth in IL and he paid the expenses. P returned to NY where D's atty advised her to return to IL so an agreement for support can be made. P and D signed an agreement Jan. 1956. Included provisions regarding support, child should live in IL for 2 years and a COL for IL. P got permission to live in CA which she did for 2 years and then returned to NY and supported by D in excess of the agreed amount. P brought action in 1959. Forum-NY Holding: Apply IL law because it is the "center of gravity" of the agreement. low-key disregard party autonomy

Holzer v. Deutshe Reichsbahn-Gesellschaft

Facts: Holzer (Plaintiff), a Jewish German, contracted with Schenker & Co. (Defendant), a German corporation, for a term of employment. Before the contract expired, the German government adopted a law prohibiting the employment of Jews in certain occupations, including that held by Holzer (Plaintiff). Schenker (Defendant) released Holzer (Plaintiff), who sued for breach of contract. The trial court, on motion, struck Defendant's defense based on the law promulgated by the German government. Schenker (Defendant) appealed. Ny public policy was no non-aryan law Forum: NY K case- law of contracting Holding: "It cannot be against the public policy of this state to hold nationals to the Ks which they have made in their own country to be performed there according to the laws of that country" German law applies

Wood Bros. Home, Inc. v. Walker Adjustment Bureau

Facts: In accordance with negotiations in California, Colorado, and New Mexico, Wood Bros. (Defendant) contracted to have Gagnon, a California resident, perform rough carpentry work on an apartment complex it owned in New Mexico. After the work started, New Mexico officials ordered the construction to stop because Gagnon did not have a New Mexico contractor's license. Wood (Defendant) canceled the contract and refused to pay Gagnon, although it did pay his employees $27,000 for their work. As Gagnon's assignee, Walker (Plaintiff) brought suit in Colorado for recovery on either a contract or quantum merit theory. The trial court held New Mexico law applied, which barred the action because Gagnon was not licensed. The court of appeals reversed, holding the law of Colorado applied, and rendered the contract enforceable Holding Characterize: Contract 1) Specific rules: Rule: § 196 applies to contracts for the rendition of services → apply law of state where services will be supplied. Here, is NM. 2) Court did do much on this but I could 3)§ The court noted CO's interest in the parties' expectations, but said that it does not supersede other interests at play. NM's statute is designed to protect consumers from hazardous construction and fiscal irresponsibility engaged in the construction business

Public Policy exception: Louks v. Standard Oil

Facts: Loucks was killed when a negligent driver employed by Standard Oil (Defendant) ran him down. The accident took place in Massachusetts, but he was a resident of New York, and his administrator (Plaintiff) brought a suit for wrongful death in New York. The suit was based on the Massachusetts wrongful death statute, which provided a minimum recovery of $500 and a maximum recovery of $10,000 with the amount of damages awarded to be based on the degree of fault of the defendant. Standard Oil (Defendant) moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the Massachusetts Statute was penal in nature and therefore unenforceable in New York. Characterization: Damages cap → substantive and thus MA damage cap applies Holding: The public policy of New York is not violated by the enforcement of the right, as New York recognizes the right of survivors to recover for wrongful death. The fact that the Massachusetts Statute is different in the way it is enforced does not make the Massachusetts Statute wrong. no public exception

Mistake of Law: Fauntleroy v. Lum:

Facts: Lum's (Plaintiff) predecessor in interest entered into a commodities futures contract with Fauntleroy (Defendant) in Mississippi. Such contracts were in violation of both civil and criminal statutes of Mississippi. An arbitration proceeding resulted in an award to Lum (Plaintiff) under the contract. Plaintiff then sued in Missouri to enforce the award and judgment was granted in his favor. He then brought suit in Mississippi to enforce the Missouri judgment, but the Mississippi court refused enforcement because to do so would violate express public policy. Holding: the judgment of the Missouri court was based on a mistake of Mississippi law, then that judgment could have been appealed in Missouri. Since it was not, it is enforceable in Mississippi just as it would be in Missouri

Contact: Auten v. Auten

Facts: Margarite Auten and Harold Auten married in England in 1917, and continued to live in that country with their two children until 1931. Harold later deserted Margarite and obtained a Mexican divorce, and proceeded to "marry" another woman. Margarite then went to New york City to see and talk to Harold about adjustment of their differences - this resulted to the separation agreement of June 1933. Under the Agreement, Harold was obligated to pay to a trustee, for the "account of" the wife, who was to return to England, a certain monthly sum for the support of herself and the children. In addition, the agreement provided that the parties were to continue to live separate and apart, that neither should sue "in any action relating to their separation," and that the wife should not "cause any complaint to be lodged against the husband, in any jurisdiction, by reason of the said alleged divorced or remarriage." Margarite subsequently returned to England, where she has since lived with her children. Harold failed to live up to his agreement, making but a few payments under it. Forum: NY Holding: Court looked to where the most contacts occurred and here the court found that the most significant contacts occurred in England and therefore applied English law

Lack of jurisdiction: Durfee v. Duke

Facts: Missouri river shifted resulting in a shift in property lines; Durfee brought a quiet title action in NE, which would only have SM jurisdiction over the action if the land in question was in NE (but this was unclear b/c of the river's shift) - court found the land was in NE, thus it had jurisdiction over the action; Duke appealed and lost. Duke then brought a quiet title action in MO over the same land, arguing that the MO federal court could determine if the NE court did have jurisdiction and thus whether or not it had to recognize and enforce the NE judgment Holding: A judgment is entitled to full faith and credit, even as to questions of jurisdiction, where the second court's inquiry disclosed that those questions have been fairly and fully litigated and finally decided in the court which rendered the original judgment. Limits the ability of F2 to review F1's jurisdiction because it says if an issue has been fully litigated and a judgment, it is entitled to FC&C even if F1 did not have jurisdiction

Characterized: Haumschild v. Continental

Facts: Mrs. Haumschild (Plaintiff) and her husband (Defendant) were residents of Wisconsin travelling in California. While in California, Plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident as a result of her husband's negligence. California law prohibited a husband or wife from bringing suit against a spouse for negligence, however, the law of Wisconsin did not. Mrs. Haumschild (Plaintiff) sued her husband (Defendant) in Wisconsin. Rule: law of domicile is the one to be applied in determining any issue of incapacity to sue based upon family relationship

Mertz v. Mertz

Facts: Mrs. Mertz (Plaintiff) was riding as a passenger in a car driven by her husband when she was injured in Connecticut. She sued Mr. Mertz (Defendant) claiming his negligence in New York, where they resided. New York had a statute which prohibited a suit by one spouse against the other to recover damages for personal injury. Connecticut did not have such a statute or policy. Forum: NY Characterization: Capacity → ability to sue in relation to marital status → procedural

Seigelman v. Cunard:

Facts: Mrs. Siegelman (Plaintiff) and her husband purchased an Atlantic crossing ticket from Cunard Lines (Defendant) in New York. The ticket, which was in the form of a contract, contained three clauses relevant to this case. One was that any action for death or injury to a passenger must be filed within one year from the date of the accident. The second stated that all questions arising on the contract would be decided according to English law. The third clause stated that any alterations of the contract terms of Cunard (Defendant) liability must be in writing. Mrs. Siegelman (Plaintiff) was injured while on the high seas and filed a claim for reimbursement. The one-year deadline approached before settlement of the claim and a claims agent from Cunard (Defendant) stated, when asked, that suit would not have to be filed since there was an excellent chance of settlement. Mrs. Siegelman (Plaintiff) subsequently died and Defendant then denied any recovery on the basis that Plaintiff's claim did not survive her. Mr. Siegelman (Plaintiff) then filed suit past the one-year time limit, asserting waiver of the limit by the claims agent. Citing the terms of the contract, the district court dismissed the suit on motion by Defendant. Forum: DSC Issue: Is the contract valid? Holding: The law of the Choice of Law stipulation should apply here. The court will enforce where there is a stipulation that is reasonable. Analyzed as a case of K and not of tort

Bernkrant v. Fowler

Facts: P's (NV) owed $24K for purchase of apartment building in NV from Granrud. At a later meeting in LV, Granrud told the plaintiffs that if they refinanced and paid off a substantial amount of their debt for the apartment, he would write a provision in his will that would eliminate any debt that that remained on the apt. Plaintiff paid Granrud in his bank account out of CA, Granrud used those funds to buy a trailer park. When Granrud died, he did not have a provision in his will for cancelling the debt. Plaintiff bought an action against the defendant to have the note cancelled · CA statute-requires any agreement to be performed not during lifetime or to be devised is invalid unless in writing and subscribed by party to be charged or agent. · NV-oral agreement to discharge an obligation to pay money secured by real property is not w/in real property SOF provision (oral K valid) Holding: : the court found that California was concerned with estate contracts that were created in california and meant to be performed in california. However, here the K was formed in Nevada and intended to be performed in Nevada

DPC anf FFC: Shutts

Facts: Phillips leased mineral rights from 30,000 individuals in all 50 states - those individuals sued Phillips in a class action suit for unpaid royalties interest in Kansas. The Kansas court applied Kansas law to all the claims, and Phillips appeals, arguing that the use of Kansas law violates both the DPC and the FFCC Holding: Sup. Ct. rejects Kansas' application of its own law in this case b/c it finds that doing so violates both the DPC and the FFCC - over 97% of the Ps in this case are residents of states other than Kansas, and 99% of the leases are located outside of Kansas

Schultz v. Boy Scouts:

Facts: Plaintiffs were residents of NJ. While on a boy scout trip in NY, the defendant sexually abused plaintiffs and continued the abuse when they returned to NJ. The plaintiffs filed suit against defendant's employer in NY. Defendant alleges the claim is barred by the NJ charitable immunity statute. Forum-NY · NY-camp and abuse; No CI · NJ-π, FB Coakley, Boy Scouts past domicile; abuse continued, suicide; CI · TX-Boy Scout current domicile; No CI · OH- FB; qualified CI Holding:The court decided that it was a loss allocation at issue on these facts and did not believe that the conduct regulation aspect was as important here. Because of that the court believed that New Jersey law was the most interested based on the facts. The key contacts here are 1) parties' domiciles and 2) the locus of tort.

Pritchard v. Norton

Facts: Pritchard (Plaintiff) had obligated himself in Louisiana to be a surety on an appeal bond required to be posted by a railroad in its appeal of an adverse Louisiana judgment. Norton (Defendant) and Pritchard (Plaintiff) contracted in New York for Defendant to indemnify Plaintiff against any loss in connection with his suretyship. The railroad lost the appeal and Plaintiff was called upon to satisfy the bond. Defendant refused to indemnify on the grounds that New York law did not recognize the validity of the indemnity contract. Plaintiff claimed that since performance was to be in Louisiana, which recognized the contract, Louisiana law should apply. The trial court rendered a verdict in favor of Norton (Defendant) based on his contention. Forum: NY Characterized: K substantial performance- validity of indemnity - substantive Holding:Since the surety of Pritchard (Plaintiff) arose in Louisiana and any indemnity payment must be made there, the law of Louisiana must have been intended by the parties to be applicableThe place of the contracting will not be material where it is different than the place of performance

Grant v. McAuliffe

Facts: Pullen was a resident of California and the driver of an automobile who died as result of an auto accident in which he was allegedly the negligent party. The accident took place in Arizona. Grant (Plaintiff), also a resident of California, was injured in the accident and sought damages from McAuliffe (Defendant), Pullen's administrator. Under California law, tort actions survive the tortfeasor's death, however, under Arizona law they do not. The California trial court found that Arizona law applied sine it was a substantive rather than procedural nature and, therefore, granted McAuliffe's (Defendant) motion to abate Plaintiff's suit. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the law was in fact procedural and therefore the law of the forum, California, should apply California is the forum Holding: a survival action is more similar to a SOL claim where the timing of the claim is determined and thus is procedural. The court thus applied forum law

DPC and FCC: Allstate v. Hague

Facts: Respondent's H died from injuries suffered in a motorcycle accident in Wisconsin for which he was a passenger. (Both drivers of vehicles and decedent Wis. residents) Decedent was employed in MN for 15 years immediately preceding death and commuted daily from Wis. and MN. Neither drivers held valid ins, decedent held Allstate policy for 3 automobiles includes uninsured coverage-$15K for each vehicle. R moved to MN prior to litigation. R attempted to "stack" the uninsured coverage for total of $45K. (policies delivered in WI) Holding:· Decedent was member of MN workforce for 15yrs; "such employees use state services and amenities and may call upon state facilities in appropriate circumstances." · Allstate was doing business in MN Apply MN law

Revoni: In re Schneider's Estate:

Facts: Schneider was born in Switzerland but had become a naturalized American citizen of the United States.He was domiciled in New York and died there. He left a will disposing of all of his assets.A portion of his assets disposed of by the will consisted of real property located in Switzerland, which he kept ownership of following his move to the United States. Internal Swiss law specified that certain portions of a decedent's property must descend to his legitimate heirs and that any testamentary disposition contrary to this law was void. The will was probated in New York.At the time of probate, the administratrix of the estate had liquidated the real property in Switzerland and had brought the resulting funds into New York. A claim was filed against the estate by the decedent's heirs in Switzerland claiming the right to the proceeds as determined by Swiss law. The testamentary disposition was valid under New York law. Rule: Situs Rule, Since the property was located in switizeralnd, New York had tot look at the whole law of switerzerland Holding:Apply the partial law. NY Court accepted the renvoi applying the whole law of Switzerland which looks at the law of the domiciliary (NY), then applied the partial law of NY, which enforced the will.

Public policy: Yarborough v. Yarborough

Facts: Π daughter, Δ dad. Δ & mom divorced in GA when Π was small. Π was un-represented at the divorce & the decree granted a lump sum child support. Now that Π is 16, she needs more $$ to further her education. She has moved to SC & sued in SC ct to modify the decree. GA law says the decree is unalterable. Holding: Held for Δ. The mere fact of Π's residence in SC does not give SC the power to impose such a duty upon the father who is not a resident. Δ has fulfilled the duty which he owes her by the law of his domicile & the judgment of its cts. The GA decree was non-modifiable and precluded litigation. SC has to give FFC to GA's judgment No. Even though GA violates SC public policy, its still not able to exert more support under the FFCC.

FFC: Pacific Employers Ins

Facts:Employee, a resident of Mass, worked for Dewey in Mass - he's temporarily assigned to work in CA for Dewey, and he's hurt while there and he recovers under CA's workers comp., and Dewey's insurer, Pacific, appeals, arguing that as the employment agreement is a Mass agreement, CA should've given FFC to Mass's workers comp. law Holding:Rule: FFC may not be invoked where the strong public policy of the forum state would find the enforcement of another state's statutes obnoxious

False Conflict: Tooker v. Lopez

Facts:On October 16, 1964, Catharina Tooker, a 20-year-old coed at Michigan State University, was killed when the Japanese sports car in which she was a passenger overturned after the driver had lost control of the vehicle while attempting to pass another car. The accident also took the life of the driver of the vehicle, Marcia Lopez, and seriously injured another passenger, Susan Silk. The two girls were classmates of Catharina Tooker at Michigan State University and lived in the same dormitory. They were en route from the university to Detroit, Michigan, to spend the weekend. Catharina Tooker and Marcia Lopez were both New York domiciliaries. The automobile that Lopez was driving belonged to her father who resided in New York, where the sports car he had given his daughter was registered and insured. This action for wrongful death was commenced by Oliver P. Tooker, Jr., the father of Catharina Tooker, as the administrator of her estate. The defendant asserted as an affirmative defense the Michigan "guest statute" (C.L.S., § 257.401 [Stat. Ann. 1960, § 9.2101]) which permits recovery by guests only by showing willful misconduct or gross negligence of the driver. The plaintiff moved to dismiss the affirmative defense on the ground that, under the governing choice-of-law rules, it was New York law rather than Michigan law which applied. Forum NY New York - Forum Defendant domicile Plaintiff domicile Law: no guest statute Michigan Plaintiff and Defendant college students Temporary residents Accident Law: guest statute and high standard req. to recover Holding: The law is concerned with an increase in insurance rates. However, here there is no car at issue that is registered in Michigan. Therefore, Michigan does not have a true interest on these specific cars and their insurance. *False Conflict. NY law applies

Property: Fall v. Easton

Facts:Π W, Δ H. W & H purchased property as a married couple in NE, by joint efforts. Then they moved to WA where they later separated. H filed for divorce contending that he was the owner of the land in NE. W brought suit contending that the divorce decree gave the land to her & that H was ordered to convey his interest to her by the Washington court. H conveyed the land via title to 3rd party & Π seeks to have that deed declared null & her title quieted. Holding: Court did not quiet title for Ms. Fall. The WA court had the power to order Δ to grant the deed to π, but otherwise had no subject matter jurisdiction over the land in NE. A non-situs court may do indirectly what it may not do directly, as long as it has personal jurisdiction over the party and can use its powers of contempt However, Nebraska does not have to recognize the agreement

Bournias v. Atlantic

Facts; Bournias (Plaintiff) was a seaman employed aboard a ship of registered in Panama and owned by Atlantic Maritime (Defendant). He brought suit against Defendant for certain unpaid wage benefits he claimed were due him under the labor code of Panama. The suit was instituted in U.S. federal court beyond the general statute of limitations providing for actions brought under the Panamanian code. Defendant moved to dismiss the suit as being barred by that statute of limitations. Forum: US federal court Is claim barred? Panama-1yr SOL; US DC longer SOL, no borrowing statute Holding: Applied US DC longer SOL because SOL is procedural

Transmission

Forum looks to the other state's whole law, then the other state's whole law says go to a 3rd state. The 3rd state can be either whole law or internal law.

Partial renvoi

Forum looks to the other state's whole law, which then says to use the internal law of the forum

Total Renvoi

Forum looks to the state's whole law, which then says whether that the forum's whole law should be applied 2 accepts = total renvoi

When both parties are citizens of a country and only one party lives locally, the local court should apply

However, if it is clear that the law only has a slight connection → apply a different law with greater connection

When can a court alter the terms of a K?

If entered into within their state, or partially performed there

Exception:i. Lack of JX (The only for sure exception)

If forum 1 does not have JX → forum 2 does not have to recognize the judgment exception: a. Explicitly or implicitly waive right to challenge jurisdiction b. Matter was fully and fairly litigated c. Showed up and accepted personal jurisdicition

What if someone dies in route to there new home?

If they had the intent to live there, domicile still switches to new intended state.

Inconsistent Judgments:

If you have two judgments on the same issues between the same parties, last judgment in time prevails

What does immovable mean?

Including real estate and other property attached to it

What is movable? what's the rule

Including tangible property and intangible (stocks) 1) Law of place where property is physically located at a time when the title was created.

Military and Domicile?

Lack the intent → so preexisting domicile clings

Situs Rule

Law of the place where the land is located governs all issues related to its title and ownership

Better law Case: Milkovich:

MN - Forum accident/end of trip Hospital stay Law: no guest statute Ontario All parties Trip begins Car garaged/insured Law: Guest statute Holding: o Interest in compensation of tort victims, since they accrue medical bills in MN—want MN medical providers to be paid, and want to compensation generally · Better Rule- Common-law liability is greater than the Ontario guest statute. o Guest statute is not the only way to protect against Collusive behavior Allowing the passenger to sue the driver for his/her negligence is the better law approach

How do courts go about characterizing a case?

Many courts look to what purpose the overall law seems to serve

Worthley v. Worthley

Mrs. Worthley (Plaintiff) received a judgment for alimony in New Jersey that was modifiable both retroactively and prospectively. She sought to enforce a claim for arrearages in California and to have the California court establish the decree as a California judgment with regard to future installments. The trial court entered judgment for Mr. Worthley (Defendant). rule: NJ decree is both prospectively and retroactively modifiable, CA is not constitutionally bound to enforce D's obligations under it nor bound not to enforce them Hold: can enforce or modify

Comparative impairment: Bernhard v. Harrah's Club

Nevada - Bar - Negligence Law: Criminal dram shop liability → goal is to protect nevada bars from civil liability. California - Forum Drunk driver, victim, & accident Law: Civil and criminal dram shop liability → goal is to protect california drivers roads. Holding: California: extreme hurt if law not applied Nevada: less hurt because would only apply in specific cases where a party was over served in Nevada then injured someone on the roadways of California. Nevada also allows some dram shop liability, just not to the full level of California.

Does tere temporary absence destroy domicile?

No

Do DPC and FFCclauses override a lot of COL cases?

No, it just provides a modest check

Does SC have a borrowing statue?

No, look at RS1

Comity

Opportunity for full and fair trial upon regular proceedings based on the merits Voluntary appearance (jurisdiction) of the defendant Under a system of jurisprudence likely to secure an impartial administration of justicebetween the citizens of its own country and those of other countries No prejudice in the court or in the system of laws under which it was sitting (DPC) No Fraud in procuring the judgment No Special Grounds → What are "special grounds"? Public Policy - if foreign jmts violates forums public policy; Family law judgments (support payments); Penal law; Rule of Reciprocity - if your court doesn't recognize our jmts, we won't recognize yours.

FFC: Alaska Packers

Palma, non-resident alien, entered into employment K w/ APA in San Francisco such that he would work for them in Alaska and when he returned to CA, he would be paid; employment K also stated that Palma was bound by Alaska's workers comp. law. Palma was hurt on the job in Alaska, so he sued for worker's comp. in CA and got an award - APA appealed, arguing that in doing so, CA denied FFC to Alaska's worker's comp. law by failing to recognize it as a defense to Palma's application for a worker's comp. award in CA Holding: Rebuttable presumption that forum law will apply UNLESS the foreign law has a superior interest. A forum state may give effect to its own law over that of the foreign JX when that law violates its public policy. Cal had a public policy of protecting workers being targeted

First Restatement and Torts

Place of injury (lex loci delictus)

If about remedy

Procedural

Is SOL substantive or procedural?

Procedural

Is Survival of action substantive or procedural?

Procedural

Is survival action substantive or procedural?

Procedural

Are damages classified as substantive or procedural?

Procedural maybe

What is procedural Law?

Rules that go to the remedy/court enforcement → these are housekeeping rules and control what is happening inside of the court

Conduct regulating

Rules that involve the appropriate standard of conduct= Locus JX will play a bigger role

Remission

Send back to the forum state. At the forum state it can be either whole or internal law.

When is there personal but not legislative?

Shutts - KS had power Phillips because it did business there and it was enough for personal. BUT KS didn't have leg jx because it couldn't apply the law to all of the claims for all of the plaintiffs

First restatement and Property Rule

Situs Rule

When can the SOL be consider substantive?

Specificity test

Convergence of DPC and FFC Rule

State must have a significant contact or significant aggregation of contacts, creating state interests, such that COL is neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair

If about right

Substantive

Is wrongful death claim substantive or procedural?

Substantive

Validity Test

The COL provision of a K will be upheld if it is 1) bona fide, 2) the law chosen has some relation to the agreement, and 3) no public policy violation.

Party autonomy and Issue of Validity

The court monitors validity because we do not want people to get around laws by using K COL clauses Require connection or reasonable basis

Who determines domicile?

The forum determines domicile

Consumer protection

These laws seek to protect the party in the inferior bargaining power

College students and domicile?

They keep the domicile of their parents

The Basic Renvoi question is this: when a court decides to use the law of another state, should it use that state's

choice of law provisions, or only its "internal"/substantive law?

Party Autonomy: Is generally preferred in

commercial Ks

What is personal jurisdiction?

court's power to compel a defendant to submit to adjudicating body; defendant's relationship to the forum (purposeful availment)

In Restatement 2nd cases, the domicile of the tortfeasor is more

more significant than the site of the injury

It must be presumed that parties to a contract will not enter into an agreement that is

not enforceable

i. Land located somewhere else?

only the situs state can render a judgment, if you do not know where land is located, then it is a question of fact;

If there is a question relating to the performance of the contract, apply

place of performance rule. Place where there is substantial performance

Is remedies substantive or procedural?

procedural

Under RS1, Renvoi is almost always

rejected bc only applies internal law

Whole Law:

substantive and choice of law rules

Internal law

substantive law

Due Process requires

that a choice of law must be reasonable and fundamentally fair, meaning that the law must be from a state with a significant relationship to the case However, does not need to be mostly significant

When a K does not make a COL selection then it is presumed that

the K is to be performed at the place where it was made and governed by those laws.

Accept Renvoi

the forum looks to the whole law of the other state

'center of gravity' or 'grouping of contacts' theory of COL emphasizes the law of the place which has

the most significant contacts w/the matter in dispute.

The place of the contracting will not be material where it is different than

the place of performance

What is legislative jurisdiction?

the power to choose a law for decision in the case

What is characterization?

the process of solving an issue by attaching a label

What if the home straddles two states?

the state where most of the home is located is the individual's domicile.

Foreign Executed Wills-

validity of a will is governed as to movable property by the law of the domicile at death and as to immovable property by the law of each situs