Conflicts of Law Outline

Conflicts of Law (Hoffheimer, Spring 2005)

“The realm of the conflict of laws is a dismal swamp, filled with quaking quagmires, and inhabited by learned but eccentric professors who theorize about mysterious matters in a strange and incomprehensible jargon. The ordinary court, or lawyer, is quite lost when engulfed and entangled in it.” – Prosser

I. Recognition of Judgments
A. Introduction – RES JUDICATA
1. Res judicata (claim / defense preclusion)
a. Used to bar a claim (or merge in claim already decided)
b. ELEMENTS
1. Identity of the parties (or privity of parties)
2. Same claim
3. CF. FOUR ELEMENTS in Mississippi
a. Identity of the subject matter of action
b. Identity of the cause of action
c. Identity of the parties (privity of the parties)
d. Identity of the quality or character against whom claim is made
1. EG: Suing Barbour, or suing governor
c. Claim preclusion applies to counter-claims too (if it was a compulsory counter-claim not raised, then can’t litigate in separate suit)

2. Collateral Estoppel (fact / issue preclusion)
a. Can be a small issue, or ultimate issue in case
b. ELEMENTS
1. Issue / fact actually litigated
2. Must be necessary to the judgment
3. Party against whom offered has had “day in court”
a. Ins. Co. gets declaratory judgment it did not cover X at time of accident with Y. Y sues and wins against X. Y now sues Ins. Co. Does Ins. Co. have benefit of claim preclusion on the issue of coverage?:
1. Y never had day in court on issue
4. Use of estoppel must be fair (“same incentives, same opportunity” to litigate issue)
a. If sued in justice court for $10, and then sued in circuit court for $10 million, probably not the same incentives
5. OPTIONAL ELEMENT (recognized by some jurisdictions but not all)
a. Mutuality
1. How this might make an impact:
a. If A is convicted of DUI, and B then wishes to sue A, wanting to have the negligence found per se (due to conviction); but B must walk through all the elements (which are all OK, except MUTUALITY, since B was not a party to the first action, then can’t use as claim preclusion)
2. Not required in MS or federal courts
3. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
a. Must be a VALID judgment (constitutional; personal jurisdiction)
b. FINAL judgment on the MERITS
1. EG: If not on merits, court itself would not give affect
2. IF something like statute of limitations, then maybe not

4. GENERAL PURPOSES of Res Judicata
a. Consistency
b. Don’t want to waste resources (legal economy)
c. Has to be some kind of finality (otherwise, always litigating)
1. Finality sometimes is more important than getting right result
a. WRONGNESS is NOT an exception

Enforcement of Foreign Judgments – International
B. Hilton v. Guyot (1895)
1. An action in personam by a foreign citizen in a foreign country against a U.S. citizen
a. French citizen sued two New Yorkers in France and won judgment
1. Frenchman then sued in New York federal court seeking enforcement
b. NB contrast – If had been an action in rem, then would have been binding
2. Holding turns on RECIPROCITY (comity)
a. France won’t recognize U.S. judgments, so U.S. won’t recognize France’s
1. This comity wrinkle added since the judgment was one of a citizen of France vs. a non-citizen (See Richman, 355)
b. Encourages France to recognize U.S. judgments
1. DISSENT – Urges res judicata
a. Looks at doctrine of finality and wasting of court resources on an already litigated issue
c. PROBLEM:
1. Sticking finger in own eye by not recognizing foreign judgment (not likely France will now recognize U.S. judgments)
2. Whose decision should this be – courts or lawmakers? (foreign policy decisions)
d. NB After Erie, Hilton may not be good law anymore
1. Federal courts now may apply state law in same situation
2. Many states have rejected this tit-for-tat principle
3. RULES discussed HERE:
a. Old Rule
1. Foreign ruling is prima facie evidence in favor of party seeking enforcement
2. Does NOT prevent relitigation (ie, could relitigate)
b. New Rule (Story / Kent)
1. Prevents relitigation
2. ELEMENTS (General Requirements)
a. Have opportunity for full / fair trial before competent jurisdiction
b. Regular proceedings
c. Due citation or voluntary appearance of defendant
d. System secure likely impartial administration of justice
e. NON-RECOGNITION IF (DEFENSES):
1. Court had no jurisdiction
2. Obtained through fraud
3. There’s a clear mistake / irregularity
4. If not valid in foreign country, then don’t have to recognize
4. Note discussion on PUBLIC POLICY
a. Court explains even though France does not allow cross-examination, allows hearsay and permits unsworn testimony, these are not repugnant to U.S. sense of justice
5. Tahan v. Hodgson (C.A.D.C. 1981)
a. Court upholds enforcement of default judgment which plaintiff obtained against D in Israel
1. Though Israeli procedures different (eg., service of process), not enough to be repugnant to U.S. public policy
b. Does not require reciprocity (even though it is present here)
c. SUMMARY OF THREE ISSUES RAISED HERE:
1. Was there due citation to D?
a. Yes (personal service of process here)
2. Is enforcement of the default judgment repugnant to public policy?
a. No (though rule different from FRCP, not violative of policy)
3. Is there a requirement of reciprocity?
a. No

C. Uniform Foreign Country Money Judgment Recognition Act
1. Foreign money judgments are enforceable
2. APPLIES only to money judgments (not injunctions, child custody, alimony, divorces, etc.)
3. Most states have NOT adopted
a. Essentially this is a blackletter treatment of Hilton
b. Look for other state statutes, case law (MS uses case law)
4. ELEMENTS for judgment that’s NOT CONCLUSIVE – (BASIC REQUIREMENTS TO MEET)
a. If jurisdiction does not provide an impartial tribunal
b. Foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction
c. Foreign court did not have subject matter jurisdiction
d. NOTE:
1. Nothing in UFMJRA prevents collateral relitigation of these issues

5. ELEMENTS for judgment that NEED NOT be recognized:
a. D did not receive notices of proceedings in sufficient time
b. Judgment obtained by fraud
c. Enforcement is repugnant to public policy
1. Matusevitch v. Telnikoff (D.D.C. 1995)
a. Court holds a foreign-country judgment pursuant to libel standards that are contrary to the libel standards of the United States would be repugnant to the public policies of Maryland and the United States, and thus would not be recognized under the UFMJRA
1. In so deciding, court has walked through the UFMJRA list, finding the problem here with public policy
2. Policy differences
a. Burden of proof between English and U.