renvoi

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.’

Thus far it has been found applicable in the realm of divorce (Ball v. Cross, supra; Dean v. Dean, supra), and in the use of foreign borrowing statutes (Holmes v. Hengen, supra). Other States have applied it to sustain the validity of a marriage (Lando v. Lando, 112 Minn. 257), to determine the rule for distribution of the proceeds of a wrongful death action (Hartley v. Hartley, 71 Kan. 691), to decide the applicability of foreign exemption statutes (Faris v. Tennant, 194 Ind. 506) and to determine the capacity of a party to enter into contractual relations (University of Chicago v. Dater, 277 Mich. 658).

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

§ 260. Intestate Succession To Movables The devolution of interests in movables upon intestacy is determined by the law that would be applied by the courts of the state where the decedent was domiciled at the time of his death

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.”

“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.”

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.”

Mertz “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)