Conflict of Laws Flashcards
Recognition of Judgments
• Issue will arise when 2 conditions:
1) judgment has been issued by a court, and 2)party seeking to have that judgment satisfied in a second different court;
o Terms:
Rendering jurisdiction – place where judgment was originally entered
Recognizing jurisdiction – place where recognition is sought
o Will do it to enforce or seek precognition to prevent religitation.
• Sister State Judgments
– If rendering court is a court in a sister state, then source of the obligation to recognize judgment is constitutional. FFC also applies to recognition b/w fed and state courts.
o STEP 1 -ARE THE REQUIREMENTS OF FFC SATISFIED? (EVALUATED USING LAW OF RENDERING STATE)
Requirement 1: JURISDICTION – rendering state must have had jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter.
• Exception – when issue of jurisdiction has been fully and fairly litigated, jurisdictional determination itself is entitled to FFC.
Requirement 2 - MERITS – judgment entered by rendering state must have been on the merits (e.g. not things like SoL, lack of jurisdiction, misjoinder, improper venue, failure to state a claim BUT Default Judgment = merits).
Requirement 3 – FINALITY – Judgment entered by rendering ct must be a final judgment.
o STEP 2 – ARE THERE ANY VALID DEFENSES TO FFC
Valid defenses:
• #1 Penal Judgments – not entitled to FFC. It’s one that punishes an offense against the public. In practice, means that P in the suit that led the judgment was the state (not punitive damages).
• # 2 Extrinsic Fraud – A judgment obtained by fraud is not entitled to FFC (could not be corrected during regular course of proceedings).
Attractive, but invalid defenses:
• #1 – Public Policy (gambling K in NV entitled to FFC)
• #2 – Mistakes – If mistakes were maid, they should’ve been challenged through an appeal in the rendering state.
• Foreign Judgments
o If rendering court is a court in a foreign country, the source of the obligation to recognize the judgment is comity or treaty.
o Rule – under principles of comity, recognizing ct will exercise discretion in deciding if should be recognized.
o Questions that will be asked:
Did foreign court have jurisdiction?
Were the procedures they followed fair?
Choice of LAw Basics
o Will arise when 2 conditions are satisfied: 1) lawsuit involves factual connections with multiple states; 2) multiple states will have different laws leading to different results
o Which state law will govern?
Governing law is law selected by the forum court according to its choice of law approach (assuming no applicable const or statutory restrictions)
Exceptions:
• Diversity cases in federal court – fed ct in diversity applies choice of law approach of the state in which it sits.
• Transferred diversity cases – when diversity case is transferred, fed ct applies choice of law approach of the old fed ct.
• Structure of Answer (choice of law)
o Paragraph 1 – “ The issue presented is which state’s law will govern the outcome of this litigation. The governing law will be selected by the forum court using the [fill in applicable approach]”
o Paragraph 2 – Here, plug in stock paragraph depending on which of the 3 tested choice of law approaches is being applied.
1 – Vested Rights (1st Rest.)
2 – Interest analysis
3 – Most Significant Relationship (second rest.)
o Paragraph 3 – Apply choice of law approach (consider facts, apply approach, and provide conclusion. Should include governing law and the result.
o Approach 1 – Vested Rights:
Paragraph 2 – “Under this approach, the court will apply the law of the state mandated by the applicable vesting rule. That rule is selected according to the relevant substantive area of law.”
Paragraph 3 – [categorize substantive area of law] “This is a torts case” [state applicable vesting rule] “Therefore applicable vesting rule is the place of injury.” [Apply vesting rule to determine governing law]. “Here, the injury occurred in Michigan, thus Michigan law applies.” [apply governing law to determine result]. Under Michigan law, a non-paying passenger cannot recover against the driver, and so the claim is barred.”
o Approach 2 – Interest Analysis
Stock language of Paragraph 2 – “ Under this approach the court will consider which states have a legit interest in the outcome of the litigation. The forum ct will apply its own law as long as it has a legit interest. If the forum ct has no legit interest, it will apply the law of another interested state”
Structure of Paragraph 3 –
• Step 1 – discuss which states have general interest
• Step 2 – characterize the type of conflict
o False conflict – only one state has a legit interest
o True conflict – 2 or more state have a legit interest.
• Step 3 – choose governing law based on type of conglice
• Step 4 – apply governing law to determine result
Sample paragraph3 – “In this case, only Illinois has a legit interest. It is interested in permitting recovery to compensate its injured resident, P. Michigan is not interested in applying its restriction against recovery simply bc the accident occurred there. Rather, it would be interested only if the D were a Michigan resident. But the D in this case is from Ill, so Michigan is not interested. This case is therefore a false conflict and Michigan law should apply
o Approach 3 – Most significant relationship (second rest.)
Stock language paragraph 2 – “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 ct will consider connecting facts and policy principles.”
Structure of paragraph 3 –
• Step 1 – discuss connecting facts
• Step 2 – discuss policy principles
• Sep 3 – Choose governing laws based on most significant relationship
• Step 4 – apply governing law to determine result
Sample paragraph 3 – “ in this case, the factual connections are split. The accident occurred in Michigan, and the injury was sustained there. But both the P and the D are from Illinois. As a matter of policy, Illinois seems to have the greater interest bc the law at issue is a loss distribution rule and both parties share an Illinois domicile. As a result, Illinois appears to have the most significant relationship to the dispute as its law should apply. Under Illinois law, the P may recover.”
Torts
o 1st Rest. Vesting – governing law is where the injury occurred
o 2d Rest. Considerations –
Faction connections:
• 1. Place of injury
• 2. Place of conduct causing the injury
• 3. Place where parties are at home
• 4. Place were relationship, if any, is centered
Policy Principles
• 1. Relevant policies of the forum state
• 2. Relevant policies of other connected states
o For all 3 approaches governing law will almost always be the law of the place of injury, but all 3 exceptions arise occasionally, particularly under 2 modern approaches (interest and most significant relationship). These exceptions typically kick in when 2 conditions are present:
Condition 1 – Rule at issue is a loss distribution rule.
• Examples – loss limitations, such as damage caps, vicarious liability rules, and elimination of liability immunity.
Condition 2 – parties share common domicile.
Contracts
o Choice of law provisions
Rule – Choice of law provision will be enforced if its valid and express
Impact – if the choice of law provision is enforced, the provision displaces the choice of law analysis that the court would otherwise perform. Conversely, if the choice of law provision is rejected, the court should then conduct a choice of law analysis.
• If in doubt, find the provision invalid.
Application – two reasons to find choice of law provision to be invalid:
• 1) the law selected has no reasonable relationship to the contact;
• 2) provision will be included without mutual assent (misrepresentation)
o Choice of Law Analysis
1st Rest – Vesting Rules -
• Rule 1 – if the case is about formation, apply the law of the place of execution:
o Examples – capacity, k formalities, consideration
• Rule 2 – if the case is about formation, apply the law of the place of performance
o Examples – TPM of performance, excuse for non-performance
2d Rest.
• Factual Connections: Place of contracting, place of negotiation, place of performance, place where the parties are at home
• Policy Principles – Relevant policies of the forum state, relevant policies of connected states, reasonable expectations of parties
• Property
o All approaches essentially apply the same rules
o Immovable (Real) Property
Apply the law of situs
o Movable (personal) property
Rule 1 – if the case involves an inter vivos transaction, apply the law of the situs at the time of the transaction
Rule 2 – If case involves matter relating to inheritance, apply the law of the decedent’s domicile at day of death
Family Law
o Rule – If a marriage is valid where performed, it will be recognized valid everywhere
o Exception – When domiciliaries of one state temporarily relocate to another state to perform a marriage that violates prohibitory rule in their home state, the state of domicile will not recognize the marriage
o Definition – A prohibitory rule is a rule that expresses strong public policy regarding marriage (as opposed to directory rules, which are administrative)
Divorce
o Rule – Forum will apply its own divorce laws
o Rationale – to acquire jurisdiction, at least one of the parties must be domiciled in the state. Therefore, the state has an interest in applying its own laws.
Legitimacy
o Rule #1 – Legitimacy of a child is governed by the law of the mother’s domicile at the time of the child’s birth
o Rule #2 – Validity of subsequent acts of legitimation are governed by the law of the father’s domicile
• Defense # 1 – Public Policy
o A forum court will not apply a law that is against its own fundamental public policy. This rule is in both restatements, but most applicable to the first rest.
(DOESN’T APPLY TO RECOGNITION OF JUDGMENTS)
• Defense # 2: Procedural Rules
o Rule – Regardless of the outcome of the choice of law analysis, the forum court will always apply its own procedural rules.
o MOST FREQUENTLY TESTED – STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
General Rule – SoL historically been viewed at procedural
Exception 1 – borrowing statutes direct a court to look at both of the forum limitations periods and the foreign limitations period (in cases where foreign law governs under normal choice of law analysis) and then to apply the shorter period.
Exception 2 -Limitations that condition a substantive right - if the normal choice of law analysis leads to the application of the foreign statute that creates a substantive right, then apply the entire statute.
Domicile
• Rule – An individual with domicile capacity acquires domicile when 1)physical presence; 2)intent to remain indefinitely
• Domicile by operation of law:
o Children
Rule 1 – Newborns are assigned the domicile of their parents;
Ruel 2 – in case of divorce, children are assigned the domicile of their custodial parent.
o Mental Incompetents
Rule 1 – individual mentally incompetent assigned domicile of his/her parents
Rule 2 - If an individual become incompetent after acquiring domicile by choice, she retains the chosen domicile
