MEE Conflict of Laws Flashcards
[R} Vest Right Approach
the Ct will apply the law of that state mandated by the applicable vesting rule; selected according to the relevant substantive area of law
Vested Rights: Contracts
If re: K formation → law of place of contracting
If re: K performance → law of place of performance
Vested Rights: Property
if immovable property (i.e., real property) → law of situs
if movable property + inter vivos transaction → situs at time of transaction
if movable property + testamentary gift → law of decedent’s domicile at death
Vested Rights: Family Law
if marriage → valid where performed (or anywhere else)
if divorce → forum applies its own state divorce laws
if child status → law of mother’s domicile at time of child’s birth
if subsequent acts of legitimation (paternity) → father’s domicile
Under this approach, the court will consider which states have a legitimate interest in the outcome of this litigation. The forum court will apply its own law if it has a legitimate interest, but it will apply the law of another interested state if it does not.
weigh each state’s interest and describe how each state is interest or uninterested
*What area of substantive law applies is not a determining factor for this approach.
False conflict v. True conflict (Interest Analysis Approach)
After describing approach, write, “In this case, [only state has / both states have] a legitimate interest.”
- If only 1 state has legitimate interest → false conflict
- apply interested state’s law
- If 2 or more states have legitimate interests → true conflict
- apply the forum state’s law
Under this approach, the court will apply the law of the state which is most significantly related to the outcome of the case (litigation). To determine this, the court will consider connecting facts and policy principles.
Most Significant Relationship Approach: Torts
- Factual Connections
- place of injury
- place of conduct causing injury
- where parties are “at home”
- where relationship, if any, is centered
- Policy Principles
- relevant forum policies
- relevant policies of any connecting state(s)
Almost always = place of injury
BUT → TORTS EXCEPTION: if (1) the rule at issue is a “loss distribution rule” (limits $ or loss, vicarious liability rules, immunity rules, etc.) AND (2) parties share a domicile, then these trump any above considerations → go with state of parties’ domicile
Most Significant Relationship Approach: Contracts
- Factual Connections:
- place of contracting
- place of negotiating
- place of performance
- where parties are “at home”
- Policy Principles
- relevant policies of forum
- relevant policies in connected states
- reasonable party expectations
- choice of law where contract was validly formed
Most Significant Relationship Approach: Family and Property
the same factors analyzed under the “vested rights approach” are analyzed here
2 Defenses to Choice of Law:
- Public Policy → focus court will not apply a law that is against its own fundamental public policy → most applicable to vested rights approach
- Procedural Issues → forum court ALWAYS applied its own procedural rules
For choice of law purposes, “statute of limitations” = procedural issue (whereas SOL = substantive issue in an Erie analysis)
Re: procedural issues, follow above rule UNLESS:
- Borrowing Statute: statute directs court to look at both forum SOL period AND foreign SOL period; statute will typically say to apply the shorter SOL
- Limitations Condition a Substantive Right: if choice of law analysis leads to the application of a foreign statute that creates a substantive right, apply that ENTIRE STATUTE
Conflict of Laws issues arise when…
- a lawsuit involves a factual connection with multiple states; AND
- these states have different laws that will lead to different results
If this occurs, court will apply its own state’s choice of law approach to determine which law applies EXCEPT in diversity cases → either federal court will apply state law of the state it physically sits in OR the transferor court’s state law (from a proper venue transfer)
Recognition of Judgment Issues arise when…
- a judgment has been entered by a Court in one jurisdiction [rendering court]; AND
- a party is now seeking to have that judgment recognized by a court in a different jurisdiction [recognizing court]
Question Schematic → Recognition of Judgments
START → is rendering jurisdiction a sister state or a foreign country?
-
Sister State: ask…
- (1) has “full faith and credit” been satisfied? AND
- (2) are there any valid defenses?
-
Foreign Country: ask…
- is foreign judgment entitled to comity?
-
comity: ask…
- (i) did the foreign court have jurisdiction? &
- (ii) were the court’s procedures fair?
-
comity: ask…
- is foreign judgment entitled to comity?
3 Requirements for “Full Faith & Credit”
- rendering court MUST have had jurisdiction over parties & subject matter (PJ & SMJ)
- exception → if issue of PJ or SMJ was “fully and fairly litigated,” the jurisdictional determination ITSELF is entitled to “full faith and credit”
- rendering entered judgment on the merits for the case
- on merits → case dismissed with prejudice like for “failure to state a claim”
- not on merits → dismissed for lack of PJ/SMJ, misjoinder, improper venue, failure to state a claim, etc.
- judgment = final (not currently on appeal)
