Lecture 8 92618 statutes of limitations 603 Statute

Lecture 8 9/26/18

statutes of limitations

§ 603. Statute Of Limitations Of Forum If action is barred by the statute of limitations of the forum, no action can be maintained though action is not barred in the state where the cause of action arose. § 604. Foreign Statute Of Limitations If action is not barred by the statute of limitations of the forum, an action can be maintained, though action is barred in the state where the cause of action arose.

§ 605. Time Limitations On Cause Of Action If by the law of the state which has created a right of action, it is made a condition of the right that it shall expire after a certain period of limitation has elapsed, no action begun after the period has elapsed can be maintained in any state.

Davis v. Mills test

Two other approaches to the problem were suggested in our opinion in Wood & Selick, Inc…. First, that the foreign law might be examined to see if the defense possessed the attributes which the forum would classify as "procedural" or "substantive"; that is, for example, whether the defense need be pleaded, as a "substantive" period of limitations need not be in this country. Second, the foreign law might be examined to see if the operation of limitation completely extinguished the right, in which case limitation would be regarded as "substantive. " Still other tests are suggested by Goodwin v. Townsend — namely, whether the foreign limitation is regarded as "procedural" or "substantive" by the courts of the foreign state concerned, and possibly whether the limitation is cast in language commonly regarded as "procedural. "

2 nd Rest - § 142. Statute Of Limitations The following § 142 replaces the original §§ 142 and 143: Whether a claim will be maintained against the defense of the statute of limitations is determined under the principles stated in § 6. In general, unless the exceptional circumstances of the case make such a result unreasonable: (1) The forum will apply its own statute of limitations barring the claim. (2) The forum will apply its own statute of limitations permitting the claim unless: (a) maintenance of the claim would serve no substantial interest of the forum; and (b) the claim would be barred under the statute of limitations of a state having a more significant relationship to the parties and the occurrence.

renvoi désistement

in re Schneider’s Estate (Sur. Ct. N. Y. 1950)

• The primary reason for its existence lies in the fact that the law-making and lawenforcing agencies of the country in which land is situated have exclusive control over such land. As only the courts of that country are ultimately capable of rendering enforceable judgments affecting the land, the legislative authorities thereof have the exclusive power to promulgate the law which shall regulate its ownership and transfer. …

what is the Swiss choice-of-law rule…?

won’t renvoi lead to infinite circles?

partial renvoi

can’t there ever be total renvoi cases?

• • • In re Annesley British subject in France dies what law governs her movable property? English choice-of-law rule – law of domicile at death French choice-of-law rule – law of nationality a French court had decided this issue as follows • choose English law, but whole law of England, which referred back to internal French law • English court in In re Annesley says, French court was wrong • English court would refer to whole law of France • how should the English court decide then? • it concluded that French law should be used because that is how a French court had ruled in the past • does that make sense?

• Section 8. Rule in questions of title to land or divorce. • (1) All questions of title to land are decided in accordance with the law of the state where the land is, including the Conflict of Laws rules of that State. • (2) All questions concerning the validity of a decree of divorce are decided in accordance with the law of the domicile of the parties, including the Conflict of Laws rules of that State. ’

2 nd Restatement Renvoi if - the objective of the particular choice of law rule is that the forum reach the same decision as that of another state (on the same facts) • Examples: • validity and effect of transfer of interests in land • and succession of interests in movables in a decedents estate

• Massachusetts wants marriages celebrated in Mass to be valid if they are valid according to a standard upon which the parties might have reasonably relied • Mass will treat a marriage entered into in Mass as valid if it is in accordance with Mass law or the law of the parties’ domicile • Two Virginians who are cousins get married in Mass • Marriage is illegal under Mass law but not Virginia law • Marriage is being adjudicated by a Wisconsin court, which uses the place of celebration rule

- CA ct is determining validity of will concerning personalty in CA - decedent was domiciled in CA at time of execution of will and executed will in CA - but decedent was domiciled in NY at time of death - will is valid under CA law, not valid under NY law - CA's choice of law rules is that the domicile of the decedent at death determines the validity of a will - NY wants to protect the expectation of the testator, so says a will is valid if it is valid under the law of either the domicile at the time of execution, or the domicile at death or the place of execution

public policy exception

Loucks v Standard Oil (NY 1918)

• “The courts are not free to refuse to enforce a foreign right at the pleasure of the judges, to suit the individual notion of expediency or fairness. They do not close their doors unless help would violate some fundamental principle of justice, some prevalent conception of good morals, some deep-rooted tradition of the common weal. ”

- assume that Cardozo had accepted that public policy exception applied - what would he have done: - dismissed action? - applied NY law (normal tort law)? - applied Mass law without Mass statute?

• “A foreign statute is not law in this state, but it gives rise to an obligation, which, if transitory, ‘follows the person and may be enforced wherever the person may be found. ’ The plaintiff owns something, and we help him to get it. We do this unless some sound reason of public policy makes it unwise for us to lend our aid. ‘The law of the forum is material only as setting a limit of policy beyond which such obligations will not be enforced there‘ (Cuba R. R. Co. v. Crosby, supra, 478). Sometimes, we refuse to act where all the parties are non-residents. That restriction need not detain us: in this case all are residents. If aid is to be withheld here, it must be because the cause of action in its nature offends our sense of justice or menaces the public welfare. ”

Assume that after the dismissal, the action is brought in Conn. Can the defendant argue res judicata?

Mertz v Mertz (NY 1936)

• Mertz • “The term ‘public policy’ is frequently used in a very vague, loose or inaccurate sense. The courts have often found it necessary to define its juridical meaning, and have held that a state can have no public policy except what is to be found in its Constitution and laws. Therefore, when we speak of the public policy of the state, we mean the law of the state, whether found in the Constitution, the statutes or judicial records. ”

Assume that after the dismissal, the action is brought in Conn. Can the defendant argue res judicata?

• Mertz – another justification • “The law of the forum determines the jurisdiction of the courts, the capacity of the parties to sue or be sued, the remedies which are available to suitors and the procedure of the courts. Where a party seeks in this state enforcement of a cause of action created by foreign law, he can avail himself only of the remedies provided by our law, and is subject to their limitations. ”

Holzer v Deutsche Reichsbahn-Gesellschaft (NY 1938)

Does interest analysis suggest that forum law should be used as in Mertz?

Should the court have simply dismissed?

German law requires everyone who is fired for being Jewish to pay for clearing out his office Deutsche Reichsbahn sues in New York for costs of cleaning out Holzer’s office Result?

Compare Kilberg v N’eastern Airlines - NY P, Mass D, plane accident in Mass - Ticket brought in NY - Mass limit on damages for wrongful death - Suit in NY - Court characterizes as procedural - But also refuses to apply limit on PPE grounds

penal laws