Conflict of Laws Flashcards
Recognition of judgments
Two conditions for recognition of judgments:
-Judgment rendered by court in Rendering jurisdiction
-Party wants judgment recognized by court in Recognizing jurisdiction (the second jurisdiction)
Why Ps seek recognition:
-Access enforcement mechanisms in recognizing state
Why Ds seek recognition:
-Prevent P from relitigating claim or issue (preclusion)
Two part analysis for recognition:
(1) Was the rendering jurisdiction a sister state or a foreign country?
If sister state [look to law of RENDERING state to see if the three reqs are satisfied]:
-Are the reqs of full faith and credit satisfied?
(i) Jurisdiction (both personal and subject matter). But cannot challenge jurisdiction if already fully and fairly litigated (i.e. you get to challenge jurisdiction only once).
(ii) Judgment must have been on the merits.
-NOT on the merits: SOL; lack of jurisdiction; misjoinder; improper venue; failure to state a claim (sometimes “with prejudice”).
-Default judgment and consent judgment are on the merits.
(iii) Judgment must be final.
-Appeals are generally considered not final judgments.
-Modifiable court decree (in divorce proceedings): past due payments are final; future payments are not final. I.e. recognizing court can enforce past due payments.
-Are there any valid defenses?
-Penal judgments (judgment that punishes offenses against public, state as P)) are not enforced.
-Punitive judgments –> NOT penal.
-Judgment based on extrinsic fraud (fraud that could not be corrected during proceedings) is not enforced. E.g. Judge was bribed in the first proceeding.
-Invalid defenses: public policy; misapplication of law;
If foreign country –> Is the foreign judgment entitled to comity?
-Did the foreign court have jurisdiction? One bite at apple principle does not apply; American court is entitled to take a fresh look at the judgment.
-Were the foreign court procedures fair?
Choice of law
ID a choice of law question: lawsuit involves factual connections w/ multiple states + states have different laws leading to different results. But not necessary for there to be a previous judgment, we just want to know what law the court will apply.
Which state’s law governs?
-Forum court will default to its choice of law approach in order to determine the law that’ll be applied. EXCEPTION: in diversity cases - (i) federal court applies choice of law approach of state in which it sits. (ii) In case transferred in federal system, applies choice of law approach of original transferor court (if that initial venue was valid).
Limits imposed on the state’s ability to decide for itself what choice of law approach it wants to use?
-Constitution - only restricts if state has no significant contact or no legitimate interest.
-Statutory - use statute of forum state if it dictates choice of law.
Choice of law essay template
Para 1: “The issue presented is which state’s law will govern. The governing law will be selected by the forum court using the [applicable choice of law approach].”
Para 2: Describe choice of law approach (1 of 3):
-(1) Vested rights approach: “Under this approach, the court will apply the law of that state mandated by the applicable vesting rule. That rule is selected according to the relevant substantive area of law.”
-(2) Interest analysis approach: “Under this approach, the court will consider which states have a legitimate interest in the outcome of the litigation. The forum court will apply its own law as long as it has a legitimate interest. If the forum state has no legitimate interest, it will apply the law of another interested state.”
-(3) Second Restatement approach: “Under this approach, the court will apply the law of the state which is most significantly related to the outcome of the litigation. To determine this, the court will consider connecting facts and policy principles.”
Para 3: Apply choice of law approach:
-(1) Categorize substantive area of law –> state applicable vesting rule –> apply vesting rule to determine applicable law –> apply governing law to determine result.
-E.g. “This is a torts case. Therefore, the applicable vesting rule is the place of injury. here, the injury occurred in Michigan and thus Michigan law applies. Under Michigan law, a non-paying passenger cannot recover against the driver, and so the claim is barred.”
-(2) Discuss which states have legit interests –> characterize the type of conflict (false conflict = only 1 state has legit interest; true conflict = two (or more) states have a legit interest) –> choose governing law based on type of conflict (false conflict = apply the law of the interested state; true conflict = if the forum is interested, apply forum law) –> apply the governing law to determine result.
-E.g. “In this case, only IL has a legitimate interest. It is interested in permitting recovery to compensate its injured resident (the plaintiff). Michigan is not interested in applying its restriction against recovery simply because the accident occurred there. Rather, it would be interested in applying its restriction only if the defendant were a Michigan resident. But the defendant in this case is from Illinois, so Michigan is not interested. This case is therefore a false conflict, and Illinois law should apply. Under IL law, the plaintiff may recover.”
-(3) Discuss connecting facts –> discuss policy principles –> choose governing law based on most significant relationship –> apply governing law to determine result.
-E.g. “In this case, the factual connections are split. The accident occurred in Michigan, and the injury was sustained there. But both the plaintiff and the defendant are from Illinois. As a matter of policy, Illinois seems to have the greater interest because the law at issue is a loss distribution rule and both parties an Illinois domicile. As a result, Illinois appears to have the most significant relationship to the dispute and its law should apply. Under Illinois law, the plaintiff may recover.”
Substantive COL rules for torts
Vested rights approach: Governing law is law where the injury occurred.
Second Restatement approach: mix of where and why. Considerations:
-Factual connections –> place of injury; place of conduct causing injury; place where the parties are at home; place where the relationship, if any, is centered.
-Policy principles –> relevant policies of the forum state; relevant policies of other connected states.
When law of place of injury will not be applied (for the two modern approaches):
-(i) Rule at issue is a loss distribution rule (i.e. seems primarily or exclusively directed at the distribution of losses). E.g. Loss limitation/damage caps; vicarious liability rules; immunity rules eliminating liability.
-(ii) Parties share common domicile.
-(iii) When both conditions met, apply law of common domicile.
Substantive COL rules for contracts
Threshold issue for contracts:
-Is there an enforceable choice of law provision in the contracts? Enforced if valid and express and thus we don’t need to do COL analysis. Displaces regular choice of law analysis.
-Reasons to find COL provision invalid: no reasonable relationship to the contract (e.g. random state’s law); provision included without mutual consent (e.g. one party misrepresents).
Vested rights approach:
-If case has to do with the formation of a contract (e.g. capacity, contract formalities, consideration), apply law of place where the contract was executed.
-If case has to do with performance (e.g. time/place/manner of performance, excuses for nonperformance), apply law of place where contract was to be performed.
Second Restatement approach:
-Factual connections –> place of contracting; place of negotiation; place of performance; where the parties are at home.
-Policy principles –> relevant policy of forum state; policies of other connected state; reasonable expectations of the parties (how can we make this contract enforceable?)
Substantive COL rules for property
Immovable (real) property: apply the law of the situs, i.e. where is the real property located.
Movable (personal) property:
-If inter vivos transaction –> apply the law of situs at the time of transaction. I.e. where was the property when the transaction occurred?
-If inheritance matter –> apply the law of decedent’s domicile on date of death.
Substantive COL rules for family law
Marriage:
-If marriage valid performed, recognized everywhere. EXCEPTION: temporary move to avoid rule of domicile that would have prevented the couple from getting married.
Divorce:
-Courts will apply own laws.
Legitimacy:
-The legitimacy of a child is governed by the law of the mother’s domicile at the time of the child’s birth.
-Validity of subsequent acts of legitimation are governed by the law of the father’s domicile.
Defenses/arguments to choice of law
-Public policy: forum court won’t apply a law that is against its own fundamental public policy. Rarely invoked.
-Procedural rules: forum court will apply its own procedural rules. SOL –> treat as procedural, so forum court will apply its own SOL rules. Different than Erie analysis, b/c here we’re talking about horizontal differences across state courts. In Erie, the q is whether the federal court should apply the law of the state in which it sits.
-Exceptions: borrowing statutes (e.g. court has to compare the two SOLs and apply whichever one is shorter); SOLs that condition a substantive right - if statute simultaneously creates right to recover and limitation period, apply statute’s limitation period.
Domicile
Domicile by choice: satisfied with (1) physical presence and (2) intent to remain indefinitely or permanently.
-Keep old domicile until new one is perfected.
Domicile by operation of law:
-Children –> newborn get domicile of parents; domicile of custodial parents on divorce.
-Mental incompetents –> assigned domicile of parents; incompetency after domicile by choice - keeps initially chosen domicile.
