Conflicts of Law Flashcards
Domicile
A. Definition – fixed, principle, permanent home; person domiciled in State X is “domiciliary”
B. Elements
1. Physical Presence – must physically enter state to establish domicile
2. Intent to Remain – indefinitely, make state home; lack of intent to leave in definite near future
C. Domicile Versus Residence – can have more than one residence simultaneously, only 1 domicile
D. No Minimum Time Requirement
1. General Rule – physical presence + requisite intent=domicile est. immediately; old domicile gone
2. Exceptions – state can require time lapse before newcomer = domiciled for some purposes; OK so long as interfere w/right to travel, interstate commerce
Domicile and Personal Jurisdiction
General Rule – courts of your domicile have PJ over you
Scope of Divorce Decree
Under the doctrine of Divisible Divorce, a court has power to dissolve a marriage even if it does not have personal jurisdiction over one party. However, a court cannot divide property, or apportion family support like child support or maintenance without jurisdiction over both parties.
Limits on Exercise of Jurisdiction
- Choice of Forum by Agreement – K forum selection clause; generally enforceable
- Forum Shopping – changing domicile post-harm doesn’t change domicile/forum
- Forum Non Conveniens – court can refuse if forum inconvenient for parties or witnesses
CHOICE OF LAW SYSTEMS
forum state will apply its own choice of law rules in order to decide which state’s law to apply; three approaches; DO ALL 3 IF Q DOESN’T SPECIFY
Traditional Restatement (First) “Vested Rights” Approach
- Bright-Line Rules
a. Torts – usually state where last event necessary to create liability occurred (injury)
b. Contracts – formation: state where K made; performance: state where rendered
c. Property – state where real property located; transaction occurred for personal proper
d. Corporations – formation, dissolution, internal affairs: state of incorporation; corporate 3d party dealings (Ks, torts): rules that would apply if corporation were person - Escape Devices – RADS – to avoid inflexibility of 1st Restatement’s rule
a. Renvoi – “send back”; apply own law even when choice-of-law rules suggest other jdx; if forum “accepts the renvoi” = interpret foreign law to “point back” to interpreting court’s forum, then apply own law to break otherwise infinite loop (you go, no you go)
b. Area of Substantive Law – one action can involve multiple areas of law & change choice law
c. Dépeçage – “cutting up”; courts split up cases into various issues and apply forum’s choice of law rules issue by issue
d. Substance Versus Procedure – procedural (including SOL): forum law applies; substance: either forum or foreign
“Interest Analysis” Approach - CUT
“Courts that employ an Interest Analysis Approach to choice of law questions will look at who the parties are; where they are located; what is the underlying purpose of the area of law that is implicated; and whether each state involved has a legitimate interest, based upon contacts w/case.”
- Contact With the Case – forum state should apply law of state w/bona fide interest in application of its laws (e.g., allowing punitive damages in order to allow domiciled P relief)
- “Unprovided-For” or “No Interest” Case – neither case has interest in application of law
a. Interests – med mal action in state w/no cap, where P resident of state w/cap and D not
b. Rule and Result – court applies forum law, even though forum has no interest in applying - True Conflict – both states have interest in application of their respective laws
a. Interests – opposition situation, P domiciled in no cap, sues D in cap state=both have interest
b. Rule and Result – forum state law applies - Substance Versus Procedure – no distinction
Modern Restatement (Second) Approach
“The Restatement 2d resolves choice of law problems by determining which state has the “most significant relationship” to the issue
plurality of states follow
1. Issue-Specific – decide choice of law on issue by issue basis; dépeçage preferred approach
2. Most Significant Relationship – usually applies law of state w/most significant relationship
a. General Factors – FINE BUD
(1) Forum’s Policies
(2) Interested State’s policies
(3) Needs of System – interstate and international
(4) Expectations of the Parties more often in K than torts
(5) Basic Field of Law and respective policies
(6) Uniformity – certainty, predictability in application of law
(7) Determination Ease – and ease of application
b. Connecting Factors for Torts – CRIP location of:
(1) Conduct Causing Injury
(2) Relationship among Parties
(3) Injury Suffered
(4) Parties
c. Connecting Factors for Contracts – SOPP location
(1) Subject Matter
(2) Offer – Acceptance (formation)
(3) Parties
(4) Performance
3. Real Property – apply law of state where land located
4. Corporations – same as first restatement
5. Substance Versus Procedure – procedural: forum state’s law
a. Statutes of Limitations – forum state unless exceptional circumstances make shorter SOL unreasonable
b. Uniform Conflict of Laws Limitations Act – minority approach: rejects SOL rule
6. Choice of Law Statutes – on-point choice of law statutes trumps any proviso of 2d Rest.
Specific Areas of Substantive Law
- Intestate Succession – law of state where real property located; personal property: law of decedent’s final domicile
- Family Law
a. Validity of Marriage – if challenged, apply law of state where marriage officially celebrated, unless marriage seriously violates public policy of forum (polygamous, incestuous)
b. Grounds for Divorce, Separation, and Annulment – forum law governs
c. Jurisdiction Over Divorce Proceedings – jdx over both spouses not necessary if P in forum - Affirmative Defenses – depend on which law is applied to which issue
Proof of Foreign Law
courts will take judicial notice of law from foreign states
a. Parties Must Raise Issue and Provide Proof – party relying on foreign law must provide court w/specific laws and enough information to understand, may require expert testimony
b. Federal Courts and Law of Foreign Nations – FRCP 44.1, party wishing to rely on foreign law must notify court; court may use any source of info to make “ruling on a question of law”
Choice of Law by Agreement
a. Generally Enforced – so long as in good faith
b. Avoiding Renvoi – choice-of-law clause = disputes resolved by foreign state’s “internal laws”
Defenses Against Application of Foreign Law
- Local Public Policy
- Penal Laws – forum laws ALWAYS apply
a. Criminal Laws
b. Civil Fines – for non-criminal offenses
c. Punitive Damages NOT penal - Revenue Laws – forum law always applies; unless trying to enforce judgment in another state
Constitutional Limitations
- Due Process – state court “must have significant contact or aggregation of contacts, creating state interests; choice of law must be neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair”
- Full Faith and Credit – Allstate: DP applies to determine whether Full Faith & Credit violated
Federal-State Conflicts
- Erie Doctrine – requires that federal district court sitting in DJ applies choice-of-law rules of the state in which it is located. Klaxon.
- Federal Supremacy – federal law generally trumps state law
Constitutional Full Faith and Credit
- General Rule – final judgments from one state must be recognized and honored in another
- Exceptions
a. Jurisdiction Lacking – court that rendered judgment lacked required jdx; test by applying law of state where court was sitting when made final decision
b. Not on the Merits – e.g., dismissal for lack of jdx
c. Decision not final – e.g., all appeals exhausted, too late to appeal
d. Penal Judgments – no FF&C due for judgment imposing civil/criminal fines
e. Inconsistent Judgments – FF&C only to the most recent judgment - Public Policy Exception - morally shocking to policy of forum state.
- Divorce Judgments - governed by ff&c
a. Jurisdiction - pj can be relitigated even if already decided in other state b. Divisible Divorce - spouse w/out pj can relitigate alimony in another state - Claim and Issue Preclusion – if res judicata, collateral estoppel implicated, apply previous state’s law to determine whether claim or issue is precluded
- International Judgments – no express FF&C; under doctrine of comity, US courts have duty to recognize judgments of foreign nations, unless public policy or applicable treaties say otherwise
