Conflicts of Law Outline

Conflict of Laws
Hoffheimer – Spring 2006
 
-direct attack-attack on the court’s decision to the court that entered the decision or an
 appeal
            -subject matter jd can be raised anytime under direct attack or during appeal
-collateral attack-anything else
            -often comes up when the plaintiff takes the judgment to some other court and                    tries to enforce the judgment
            -personal jd can only be collaterally attacked when under default judgment
 
Res Judicata
-deals with the recognition of judgments and the rights that arise from this
 
-in order to apply:
            -must be a valid judgment
            -must be a final judgment
            -must be a judgment on the merits
 
Basic purposes
-to have some end to litigation
-to prevent burden on the courts
-some people would keep defending forever
-efficiency
-serves basic questions of fairness and justice
-promotes consistency
-discourage court shopping
 
-Can be dealing with:
-finality of claims
            -claim preclusion
-collateral estoppel
            -issue or fact preclusion
 
Res Judicata – Claim preclusion
Must have
-same parties-has to be identity of parties or persons in privity with them
            -privity-someone who was virtually represented by the party in the case
-same claim-has to be identity of claim
 
For MS-
Must have
-same subject matter of the action-identity of subject matter
-same cause of action-identity of the cause of action
-same parties or privity-identity of parties
-same quality or character of the person who was previously sued –identity
            -ex: suing the governor (haley) applying to claim preclude the next gov
 
Collateral estoppel – Issue preclusion
Must have
-actually been litigated and determined
-been necessary to the determination
-fact has to have been determined against the party who is being bound by it
            -party has to have had day in court
-parties have to have had the same opportunities and incentives to litigate
            -same motivation to have fully defended themselves
-mutuality-similar to same parties requirement 
            -no longer followed by most courts
            -no longer required in MS
 
*not a requirement that decision or fact was initially decided correctly
 
I)                   Recognizing and Enforcing Jmts
 
A)           Finality: Res Judicata
 
1)             Claim preclusion: prohibits a 2d suit on a claim or COA that was asserted in a prior suit which proceeded to final jmt on the merits
(a)                General requirements for claim to be precluded:
(i)                 same parties (or privity), AND
(ii)               same claim or defense
(b)               MS requirements (“identity” is the correct way to say “identicalness”)
(i)                 identity of subject matter of the action
(ii)               identity of the COA
(iii)             identity of parties or persons in privity, AND
(iv)             identity of quality or character of person against who claim is made (e.g. suing in official capacity)
 
2)             Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel): prohibits relitigation of factual issues actually decided in a prior proceeding, regardless of whether the 2d proceeding is based on the same claim or COA
(a)                Requirements for an issue to be precluded:
(i)                 issue has to be actually litigated and determined
(ii)               the determination must be necessary to the jmt
(iii)             the party who is being “estopped” must have had an opportunity for his “day in court” on that issue, AND
(iv)             application of issue preclusion must be fair in that there was the same incentive to litigate or a similar opportunity to develop a defense
(b)               Some cts have a 5th requirement of mutuality (person who uses preclusion must have been a party to the original jmt), but not MS or fed’l cts
(c)                Can be offensive (when π uses it) or defensive (when Δ uses it)
 
3)             These principles apply even if the original decision was wrongly decided
4)             A jmt is final for res judicata purposes when it has been decided; you don’t have to wait for it to go through the appellate process
 
5)             To be entitled to full faith and credit, jmt must be valid (e.g. ct had jdn) and must be on the merits
(a)                Classes of jmts generally held to be not on the merits:
(i)                 lack of SMJ
(ii)               lack of personal jdn
(iii)             improper venue
(iv)             misjoinder
(b)               MS
(i)                 default jmts are on the merits
(ii)               lack of jdn, improper venue, or improper joinder are not on the merits
 
 
 (B)       Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
 
6)             – Hilton v. Guyot (US 1895)
(a)                π, French citizen, sues Δs, New Yorkers, in France and wins; sues in fed’l ct in NY to enforce the jmt.
(b)               Ct distinguishes btwn 4 types of foreign jmts
(i)                 both parties are citizens of the foreign state: jmt is binding (subject only to ordinary defenses)
(ii)               Δ is citizen of foreign state, but π is not: binding (subject only to ordinary defenses)
(iii)             π is citizen of foreign state, Δ is not, and jmt is for Δ: binding (subject only to ordinary defenses)
(iv)             π is citizen of foreign state, Δ is not, and jmt is for π:
*                  additional requirement of reciprocity (if an American jmt against π would be upheld in the foreign state, then the foreign jmt will be upheld in US)
*                  apply Kent-Story rule
 
7)             Kent-Story rule (used by Hilton ct)
(a)                When there has been:
(i)                 opportunity for a full and fair trial before a ct of competent jdn
(ii)               trial conducted upon regular proceedings
(iii)             due citation or voluntary appearance of Δ, AND
(iv)             system of jurisprudence likely to secure the impartial administration of justice (fair system)
(v)               mutuality-US does have to enforce judgment of court that would not enforce its judgments
(b)               And has NOT been:
(i)                 prejudice (either in the ct or in the system of laws in which the ct was sitting)
(ii)               fraud in procuring the jmt
(iii)             lack of personal or subject matter jdn
(iv)             clear mistake or irregularity
(v)               jmt invalid under the laws of the place it was rendered, OR
(vi)             lack of reciprocity (same as (v) above
(vii)           goes against American public policy
(c)                Then the foreign jmt will be enforceable in the US and should preclude relitigation
 
8)             Tahan v. Hodgson (DC Cir. 1981)
(a)                An example of how modern cases are generally decided
(b)               US cts are reluctant to deny recognition of foreign jmts by virtue of mere difference of procedure
(c)                Says that reciprocity/mutuality is not required for the US to enforce a foreign country jmt
 
9)             Uniform Foreign Country Money-Jmt Recognition Act § 4: “Grounds for Nonrecognition”
(a)                § 4(a): A foreign country jmt is not conclusive if-these are mandatory pre-reqs:
                  (1): the jmt was rendered under a system which does not provide                                                  impartial tribunals or procedures compatible w/ the requirements of                                        due process of law (fair system);
                  (2): the foreign country ct did not have personal jdn over Δ; OR
                  (3): the foreign country ct did not have SMJ
 
(b)               § 4(b): A foreign country jmt need not be recognized if-optional pre-reqs:
                  (1): timely notice;
                  (2): the jmt was obtained by fraud;
                  (3): contrary to public policy;
                  (4): contrary to previous judgment;
                  (5): contrary to arbitration agreement; OR
                  (6): seriously inconvenient-in the case of jdn based only on personal                                            service, the foreign country ct was a seriously inconvenient forum                                          for the trial of the action
 
(c)                Some states add a 7th section: “it is est’d that the foreign country ct in which the jmt was rendered does not recognize jmts rendered in this state” (reciprocity req’t)
 
Consistent with Public Policy Requirement
10)         Matusevitch v. Ivanovich (D.D.C. 1995): If the foreign law stds are contrary to U.S. stds, so much so that they would be repugnant to the public policy of the US or the state in which enforcement is sought, comity forbids recognition of the foreign jmt
 
639-56
(C)       Recognition of US Judgments
 
    Property law    (just an aside) 
    -avulsion-quick, sudden change in the land-no change in property lines, ownership
            -accretion-slow change in the land, over time-property lines change
 
            Full Faith and Credit Clause-Art IV, Sec 1, obligates states to give FF&C to the    public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. It also provides     that Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts,      records, and proceedings shall be proved and the effect thereof.
 
          Jurisdictional Requirements
11)         Durfee v. Duke (US 1963): Full Faith & Credit Clause requires that other states’ determinations that they had jdn are entitled to FF&C, even if the determination was erroneous, PROVIDED THAT the jurisdictional questions were:
                 (1) fully and fairly litigated, and
                 (2) finally decided, in the ct that rendered the jmt
   
(a)                Note: FF&C doesn’t apply to foreign country jmts, only to foreign state jmts
 
(b)               In general, even though older court opinions show some dicta that seems to recognize a real property exception to the general rules of Res Judicata, there is NOT an actual exception to this, even in the case of real property disputes.
 
(c)                General rule-a judgment is entitled to FF&C even in questions of jurisdiction-even if the judgment is wrong!
 
(d)               In questions of personal jd-if you appear and fully and fairly litigate, these decisions are binding.
            In questions of subject matter jd-if you appear and litigate issue (or have       opportunity to do so), these decisions are binding also.
 
(e)                Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank (US 1940): extends Durfee rule to cases where the party could have raised the issue of lack of jdn, but didn’t (thus the issue wasn’t actually litigated, but could have been).
 
12)         Fall v. Eastin (US 1909): A jmt rendered in State X that purports to directly affect title to land located in State Y need not be respected by the cts of State Y
(1)   Principle is that one state can’t directly affect title of land located in another state.
                (2) Look at whether the judgment directly or indirectly affects land rights.
                (3) Possibly affects rights of BFP (if anything, after Durfee).
 
    (a)        Decided much earlier than Durfee, possibly not even still good law-                                       maybe a very small exception, if anything-but most probably overruled.
 
13)         Kalb v. Feurstein (US 1940)
(a)                Exception to gen’l principle from Durfee. Bankruptcy exception to extension under Chicot. Wrongful jd does not have to be raised or be waived.
(b)               SMJ issues may furnish a ground