Conflicts of Law (MEE) Flashcards
Domicile of Individuals
- Individuals can only have one domicile at a time
- Can occur either by choice or by operation of law
Domicile of Individuals: Domicile by Choice
Domicile by choice is where the person is actually physically present with the intent to remain for an unlimited time
* Physical presence: Person need not be present for any specific amount of time, so long as time is coupled with intent to remain
* Intent to remain: Can be demonstrated by non-conclusive factors such as ownership of real estate, voting, payment of taxes, having a bank account, registering a car, etc. Presence under compulsion (e.g., prison) will not establish intent to remain.
Domicile of Individuals: Domicile by Operation of Law
Domicile by operation of law occurs when an individual does not have legal capacity to choose a domicile
* Infants: Domiciled where custodial parents are domiciled unless emancipated
* Incompetents: Person lacking mental legal capacity to choose a domicile retains parents’ domicile unless person chose a domicile while competent
Domicile of Corporations
State in which it is incorporated
Domicile: Continuity and Change of Domicile
- Continuity: Once established, domicile is presumed to continue until new domicile is acquired. Burden of showing change in domicile is on party that asserts it.
- Change: Person with capacity to change domicile is physically present in place with intent to remain. Physical presence and intent must be at same time.
Choice of Law: Due Process
Forum state may apply its own law to a particular case only if it has a significant contact or a significant aggregation of contacts with the state such that a choice of its law is neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair
Choice of Law: Full Faith and Credit
- Requires a forum state to apply law of another state when forum state has no contacts with or interest in the controversy but does not prevent forum state from applying its own law when forum has such contacts or interest
- Does not require a state to apply another state’s law in violation of its own legitimate public policy
Party-Controlled Choice of Law
Courts will enforce a contractual COL provision if it is:
* A valid agreement with an effective choice-of-law clause;
* Applicable to lawsuit under terms of contract;
* Reasonably related to lawsuit; and
* Not in violation of public policy of forum state or another interested state
Traditional/Vested Rights Approach (First Restatement)
- Rule: Law that controls is law of jurisdiction where parties’ rights were vested (i.e., location where the last act takes place that is necessary to give the plaintiff a cause of action).
- First, court will characterize issues in cause of action as either procedural (forum court will apply its own procedural rules) or substantive (forum court must identify substantive area of law)
- Second, after characterizing issue in cause of action, forum court will determine what forum state’s choice-of-law rules require with regard to characterized issue.
Most-Significant-Relationship Approach (Second Restatement)
Rule: Forum court applies law of the state with most significant relationship to issue in question. If there is a tie, forum court will apply forum law.
Three Guiding Principles:
1. Promoting relevant policies of forum and other interested states;
2. Protecting systemic interests (certainty, uniformity, predictability, simplicity)
3. Protecting justified expectations of the parties (applies to planned transactions in contracts, trusts, real property)
Governmental Interest Approach
Rule: Presumed that forum state will apply its forum law, but parties may request that another state’s law be applied because that state has a greater interest in the outcome.
* False Conflict: If forum has no interest in the litigation, court appleis law of state that does have an interest.
* True Conflict: If both forum and another state have interest in litigation, forum state reviews its own policies to determine which law should apply. If conflict cannot be resolved, court applies forum state law.
Note: Governmental interest approach has no special rules for particular areas of law. Instead, distinguish between conduct-regulating vs. loss-shifting laws.
Governmental Interest Approach: Conduct-Regulating vs. Loss-Shifting Laws
- Conduct-Regulating: States have an interest in apply conduct-regulating law when wrongful conduct occurs within territory of state, causes injury within territory, or when state domiciliary is injured (regardless of where)
- Loss-shifting (determines liability): States have an interest in applying loss-shifting law when doing so would benefit a state domiciliary
Governmental Interest Approach: Disinterested Forum
- Forum non conveniens available: Forum state should dismiss case
- Forum non conveniens not available: Forum state may make its own determination as to which law is better to use, or apply law that most closely matches state law
Conflict of Law: Federal Diversity Cases
- Federal district courts are generally required to apply the COL rules of the state in which it sits (only to the extent that the state’s rules are valid under the Full Faith and Due Process Clause)
- If a diversity case was transferred from a federal court in another state, first state’s COL rules will be applied
Depecage
Approach that allows law of one state to govern one or more issues while other issues are controlled by law of one or more other states
Renvoi
When a court applies law of another state, it applies whole law of that state, including state’s COL rules
* Accepting renvoi: Applying other state’s COL rules
* Rejecting renvoi: Ignoring other state’s COL rules
Note: All three approaches reject renvoi, except for issues involving property rights in land, courts generally accept renvoi. In addition, Federal Tort Claims Act requires application of COL rules of place where act or omission took place.
Torts: Vested-Rights Approach
Case is governed by law of place where last event necessary to make actor liable for the tort took place (generally the law of the place of injury)
Torts: Most-Significant-Relationship Approach
Court will presume place of injury controls unless another state has more significant relationship to parties or tort. Court will consider four important contacts:
* (i) place of the injury,
* (ii) place where conduct causing injury occurred,
* (iii) domicile, residence, place of incorporation, or place of business of parties, and
* (iv) place where relationship is centered.
Contracts: Express Choice of Law Provision
If there is an express choice-of-law provision in the contract, then that law will govern unless:
* Contrary to public policy;
* No reasonable basis for parties’ choice; or
* There was fraud or mistake and true consent was not given.
Express COL Provisions: Contract Validity
Generally, contract validity cannot be resolved solely by parties’ COL. However, parties can choose law that will apply to contract validity if:
* Chosen state has a substantial relationship to parties or transaction, or
* There is some other reasonable basis for the choice
Note: Choice of law will be ignored if application would be contrary to a fundamental policy of state with most significant relationship to the issue.
