DOMICILE: is defined as the place “where a person has his principal home and place of enjoyment of his fortunes; which he does not expect to leave, except for a purpose; from which when absent, he seems himself a wayfarer; to which when he returns, he ceases to travel”….In re Estate of Price, quoting Snodgrass v. Snodgrass. Domicile requires physical presence within the state and the intent to remain there indefinitely; residence requires merely physical presence. In resolving the issue of domicile, the governing law is that of the forum. Domicile of a person within a state establishes an important legal relationship between the person and that particular place. It implies a nexis between the person and place of such permanence as to control the creation of legal relations and responsibilities of the utmost significance. (PRICE). The existence of domicile, whether of origin or selection, continues until a new one is acquired. Alvord & Alvord v. Patenotre. SIGNIFICANCE: it has both jurisdictional and choice-­‐of-­‐law purposes. •
Jurisdictional Basis: accepted basis for in personam jurisdiction over an individual and is also the principal basis for jurisdiction in matters concerning personal status. •
Choice-­‐of-­‐law Problems: Where is issue is which state’s law is ot be applied to a particular transaction that has “contacts” with various state, the party’s domicile may be deemed the most important “contact”. White v. Tennant: intent to leave is not enough; you must arrive at the new domicile. In re Estate of Jones: 3 Types of Domicile 1.
Origin: an infant at the time of his birth acquires the domicile of his parents. 2.
Choice: This is the most important type-­‐-­‐involving a person’s intentional selection of a “legal home”…displaces his previous domicile. 3.
Law: where the law attributes to a person independent of his own intention or action of residence. This results generally from the domestic relations of husband and wife, or parent child. Denny v. Sumner County: To constitute a change from a domicile to another domicile of choice, three things are essential: •
actual residence in the other or new place; •
an intention to abandon the old domicile; and •
an intention of acquiring a new one at the other place. THE INTENTION MAY BE INFERRED FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES. GENERAL RULES OF DOMICILE: •
PROPERTY: governed by the law of the situs. Trivette: court can compel a party to transfer title to property located outside the jurisdiction but the court cannot effectuate the transfer. •
PROBATE: Domicile of the decedents the proper jurisdiction to probate the decedents estate. (Svoboda v. Svoboda) •
STUDENTS: generally retains the domicile he/she had prior to entering school (GM v. McDonald) •
MINORS: domicile of children is controlled by the parent or legal guardian charged with custody-­‐ not just physical custody. (McElhaney v. Chipman) •
TAXATION: the legislature intends taxation to apply to those who live in the state, regardless of domicile. A conditional change in domicile is not a change, until condition precedent is satisfied. (Hussey v. Jackson) •
INCOMPETENT PERSONS: doesn’t have the requisite intent to change domicile. Where you were last competent is your domicile. Conservator must be brought in to make a change (In re Lois Clayton) •
SOLDIERS: the domicile of a soldier is that of his entry into the military, however, it may change if both fact and intent to change domicile occurs (Wiseman v. Wiseman) •
DIVERSITY: The state of a person’s domicile, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction in FEDERAL court, is not determined by state law, but rather by FEDERAL common law. (Rodriguez-­‐Diaz v. Sierra-­‐Martinez) ONCE DOMICILE is in effect, it remains until the change is clearly proven. Coke v. Coke (1977) JURISDICTION: refers to the court’s power to affect parties’ personal status, personal interests, or property rights. ALWAYS ASK YOURSELF: •
Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction? •
Does the court have in personam (or in rem) jurisdiction? Federal Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. There are limited to cases involving federal questions and diversity of citizenship. Essential Requirements for Proper Jurisdiction
Constitutional Basis for Asserting Jurisdiction • In Personam Jurisdiction (presence in the state when serverd, domicile, residency, nationality, appearance in or consent to action, minimum contacts with state, long arn statues • In Rem and Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction: MINIMUM CONTACTS Competent Court • Authoity under appropriate statutes to hear type of case Notice and Opportunity to be Heard • Acutal Notice-­‐ personal service, substituted service, contructive service, or waiver of notice • Fair opportunity to appear and defend GENERAL JURISDICTION: true power based jurisdiction, gives the court the power to hear a cause over a cause of action over event occurring in the state-­‐-­‐
not only where the parties are domiciled, but ALSO where the parties are. Defendant can be sued in a forum on a claim that arose ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD if: 1. You can obtain general jurisdiction over the ∆ if he has presence through “continuous and systematic” contacts with the forum. Helicopteros Nationales de Columbia S.A. v. Hall-­‐ continuous and systematic activities related to the cause of action COULD get you general jurisdiction. 2. ∆ is domiciled in the forum Burnham v. Superior Court-­‐ state does not need minimum contacts if personal service is within the state, *general power based, raw jurisdiction*. While physically present there, the subjected himself to the possibility of personal service that will sustain in personam jurisdiction over him on matters UNRELATED to the purpose of his visit. (transient jurisdiction) 3. Corporation is incorporated to do business in the forum or has a registered agent in the form. Davenport v. State Farm: even if claim has no relationship, if there is a registered agent in TN, then this is sufficient for general jurisdiction ******* Dooley v. Dooley (TN case): if claiming lack of in personam jurisdiction, the defendant must raise the issue before answering the complaint. Tennessee courts have said that making or resisting of any motion, or any agreement with the plaintiff, or any act in the cause-­‐-­‐it constitutes a general and unlimited appearance, unless limited by express declaration or by necessary implication. Barrell v. Benjamin-­‐ case is a great example of pure power based JD, personal contracts are said to have no situs or locality, but follow the person of the debtor Grace v. MacAurthur: You MAY be served in an airplane over the forum state SPECIFIC JURISDICTION: cause of action must have a relationship with the state….you never have a due process problem with a ∆ that resides in the state (general jurisdiction)….the DUE PROCESS clause is why you have need for specific jurisdiction. If an ALABAMA ∆ committed a tort in TN, comes to TN, and is served while he is here, then that is general jurisdiction. With regard to corporations, power-­‐based jurisdiction is only where the corporation is incorporated and the in the location of their principal place of business-­‐-­‐-­‐thus, the need for specific jurisdiction….which also for lawsuits in states where the have “minimum contacts”. 1 DO NOT USE SYSTEMATIC AND CONTINUOUS LANGUAGE HERE! (FOR GENERAL JURISDICTION ONLY!) International Shoe Co. v Washington (1945)-­‐ This case imposes the standard for th
due process under the 14 Amendment! Authorized state to enact statutes giving their courts in personam specific jurisdiction over out-­‐of-­‐state ∆’s where the ∆’s contacts with the state are such that the maintenance of the suit does not “offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” The contacts required to meet the due process standard requires the Court to BALANCE the quality and nature of the activities with the fair and orderly administration of justice. DUE PROCESS requires only that in order to subject the ∆ to a judgment in personam, if he is not present within the territory of the forum, that he such minimum contacts with it that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The Court considers the following to determine if MINIMUM CONTACTS are present (Masada v. Allen): 1.
Quantity of the contacts 2.
Nature and Qualities of the contacts 3.
Source and connection of the cause of action with those contacts a.
Interest in the forum state b. Convenience McGee v. International Life-­‐ a single contact which is related to the cause of action can provide minimum contacts. This is the high watermark case for minimum contacts. This case would probably not hold up today unless it passes the Hanson criteria. Hansen v. Denckla added another layer of analysis: purposeful availment and reasonableness of suit in the forum. Contact must result from purposefully availing oneself to the forum. Unilateral acts of one individual do NOT create JD-­‐-­‐
must have purposeful availment by the ∆ in order to be subject to the court’s JD. Jurisdiction depends on the quality and nature of the ∆’s activity, but it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the ∆ purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the state. CENTER OF GRAVITY of the controversy DOES NOT establish jurisdiction, but MAY determine the substantive law. Two different determinations! Must consider jurisdiction and the applicable substantive law. th
Southern Machine Company v. Mohasco Industries (6 Cir. 1968)-­‐ Sixth Circuit analyzed Tennessee’s long arm statute to see if it passes constitutional muster. Developed 3 PRONG TEST: 1.
∆ must purposefully avail himself to the privilege of acting in the forum state or causing consequences in the forum state; (exact language from Hansen); 2.
The cause of action must arise from the ∆’s activities in the forum state; and 3.
The acts of the ∆s or the consequences caused by the ∆ must have a substantial enough connection with the forum state that the exercise of jurisdiction over the ∆ is reasonable. (Darby v. Superior Supply). NOTE: Tennessee is moving more toward allowing us to grant JD outside of our state because of the long-­‐arm statute. The general fairness analysis in Southern Machine is focused on the ∆, as opposed to the McGee’s focus on fairness to the π. Masada Investment Corp v. Allen: High Watermark Case. Tennessee adopts International Shoe minimum contacts standard and also requires that the court look at: quality, nature and quantity, source and connection of the cause of action with those contacts, interest of the forum state, and convenience of ∆’s contact with forum. (Same factors listed above). Nicohlstone Book Bindery, Inc. v. Chelsea: provides guidelines for what is NOT necessary to determine if Tennessee has jurisdiction: physical presence of the ∆ or its agent, ∆ didn’t solicit the business, technicalities of the contracts execution, law choice in the contract, forum choice. Ultimately, the court found that the test set forth in Mohasco was met. FORESEEABILITY/STREAM OF COMMERCE: Worldwide Volkswagen v. Woodson: Foreseeability is not enough, must conduct minimum contacts analysis. The question is where the ∆ reasonably anticipates being haled into in the forum court due to his conduct and connections with the forum state. Asahi Metal Industry Co. Ltd. V. Superior Court of California: requires minimum contacts with the forum and foreseeability that the ∆ would be hauled into court as a result of his product being place into the stream of commerce couple with awareness thtat its product would reach the forum state. (FORESEEABILITY, NOT JUST STREAM OF COMMERCE). Davis Kidd Booksellers v. Day-­‐Impex: TN’s Asahi-­‐ declined stream of commerce jurisdiction. Court must decide contacts (quality/quantity), then fair play by 5 FACTORS: burden on the ∆, forum for the π, Interest of the forum, economy, policy. Mullins v. Harley-­‐Davidson: this is the case where stream of commerce would have been appropriate to adopt and it was rejected. Instead, the court looked at Asahi factors that show purposeful action in the distribution of the product. Keeton v. Hustler-­‐ “single publication rule”-­‐ ∆’s had “contacts” with the forum state for jurisdictional purposes based on the circulation of a magazine. Plaintiff’s residence or lack of residence in the forum will not defeat jurisdiction. “CYBER JURISDICTION”: Pavolvich v. Superior Court: passive website that only makes information available is not grounds for in personam jurisdiction, even if the harm is foreseeable. Merely asserting that a ∆ knew tor should have known that his intentional acts would cause harm in the forum state is not enough to establish jurisdiction under the “EFFECTS TEST”. Bailey v. Turbine Design, Inc. is essentially the TN counterpart-­‐-­‐just posting on the website is not enough to give TN JD, however, emailing information to customers may have been a different outcome, so this is a very narrow holding. Persuasive authority only. TENNESSEE’S LONG ARM STATUTE: T.C.A. §20-­‐2-­‐214 Service on non-­‐residents, are subject to jurisdiction for a claim arising out of: 1.
Business in the state 2.
Tortious Act 3.
Ownership of Property 4.
Contracting in State BASIS of “MINIMUM CONTACTS”: “PRESENCE” (DOING BUSINESS) IN FORUM TEST: QUANTITY OF CONTACTS + NATURE OF CONTACTS Office in forum Personnel in form must be continuous and Other Assets in forum systematic, not sporadic or Bank Account in forum isolate Advertising directed to forum RESULT: General Jurisdiction-­‐ court has personal jurisdiction over defendant for any and all causes of action. LIABILITY PRODUCING ACTIVITY IN FORUM TEST: PURPOSEFUL FORUM + FORUM FAIR & REASONABLE RELATED ACTIVITY PLACE FOR TRIAL Quality and nature of contacts Consider: Important, not number (single -­‐Hardship to nonresident to appear contact may be sufficient) and defend Defendant must have intentionally -­‐Hardship of Plaintiff to defend availed himself of benefits, privileges elsewhere or protection of forum -­‐Interest of forum in litigation or activities RESULT: Limited Jurisdiction-­‐ personal jurisdiction limited to suits arising out of liability producing activity in forum. GENERAL JURISDICTION: A fair number of federal statues authorize either nationwide or worldwide service of process, by which Congress apparently means 2 to allow personal jurisdiction over ∆ in certain cases without regard to state boundaries. FRCP 4: federal district courts have personal jurisdiction over a ∆ who could be subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction In the state in which the district court is located. Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co.-­‐ a non resident ∆ whose activities and contacts with the forum state will support the conclusion that she is “doing business” locally is subject to the general jurisdiction of the forum state; she can be sued on any and all transitory causes of action, whether or not related to her local activities. Like a resident of the forum, she may be liable for her acts anywhere, regardless of the lack of relationship to her local activities. Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia, S.A. v. Hall: A foreign corporation did not that sufficient contacts with Texas to support in personam jurisdiction over a cause of action (wrongful death) unrelated to those contacts where its only contacts consisted of sending in CEO to Texas for a contract negotiating session, accepting checks in NY drawn on Texas bank, purchasing goods and service from a Texas corporation, and sending its employers to Texas for training. NOTICE: In addition to a sufficient basis for jurisdiction and competent court, due process of law requires that reasonable steps be taken in each case to give the ∆ actual notice of the proceeding and a fair opportunity to appear and defend. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank: such notice must be “reasonably calculated” to apprise party of an action and give chance to defend. •
Baggett v. Baggett: Tennessee adopts Mullane. CHOICE OF LAW: Torts Hataway v. McKinley: Tennessee abolished “lex loci” and adopted “most significant relationship” in tort cases. McDonald v. General Motors: Tennessee case affirming “most significant relationship” and applying Restatement §145 & §6. Restatement §145: Law with Most Significant Relationships a.
Place where injury occurred b. Place where conduct causing injury occurred c.
Domicile, residence, place of incorporation d. Where relationship is centered Restatement §6: Relevant Factors to Determine Rule of Law a.
Needs of systems b. Relevant policies of the forum c.
Relevant policies of interested states d. Protection of expectations e.
Policies of underlying law f.
Results g.
Ease in determining law Property/Land Boals v. Boals: court can order transfer of deed, but not actually transfer property, no situs. Trivette v. Trivette: (TN Case), Law of situs, Tennessee court cannot pass title of land not in Tennessee, only order to do so. Probate First Christian Church v. Moneypenny: all probate of real property will be in situs. Contract Estate of Davis: Tennessee if lex loci contractus, absent choice of law, Tennessee applies lex loci contractus, the law where the contract was executed. Forum Selection Clause Goodwin Brothers Leasing, Inc v. H&B, Inc.: Parties are free to contract as long as there is a reasonable relationship between the party and the forum, there must be good faith. Chaffin v. Norwegian Cruise Line: must be accepted unless: •
Unreasonable •
Against public policy •
Overreaching •
Fraudulent Family Law Lettellier v. Lettellier: Determine if initial or modification Modification: after notice and hearing, if: 1.
No parties live in issuing state 2.
Petitioner is non-­‐resident 3.
Respondent id subject to personal jurisdiction In Re Copeland: Jurisdiction of child follows legal guardian. When deciding status of “thing” (child), it would be where the child is (in rem). Look at TCA §36-­‐
6-­‐217., exclusive, continuing jurisdiction. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT: Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution requires that each state give “full faith and credit” to the “public acts, records and judicial proceedings” of every other state. The question is the extent to which this limits the choice-­‐of-­‐law rules that a state may adopt. th
It seems clear that the Full Faith and Credit Clause-­‐-­‐like the 14 Amendment Due Process Clause-­‐-­‐does not compel a forum to adopt any particular choice-­‐of-­‐law rule. As long as the forum state itself has some reasonable relationship (i.e. minimum contacts”) with the matter in dispute, choice of law remains largely a matter of judicial discretion, that than constitutional compulsion. The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not apply to judgments rendered in a foreign country. However, many foreign countries have entered into treaties with the United States providing for mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE: Congress has provided that a final judgment rendered by a federal district court in an action for recovery of money or property may simply be registered in any other deferral district court (by filing a certified copy of the original judgment in the second district). Once registered, the judgment has the SAME effect as a judgment of the district in which it was rendered and may be enforced directly (no new action needs to be filed). STATE COURT ENFORCEMENT: rarely a reason to seek federal judgment in state courts…but when it is sought, it must be in compliance with the procedures of the state court….may need to file a NEW action, obtaining jurisdiction over the Defendant, etc. Hilton v. Guyot: RECIPROCITY DOCTRINE: the US Supreme Court held that federal courts should recognize and enforce judgments of a foreign country if the foreign country would subject an American judgment to similar treatment. This doctrine is not binding on the states and has been expressly rejected by New York. NOTE: Federal Courts in diversity cases apple the recognition law of the states in which they sit under the ERIE doctrine. Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp.: recognition of judgments is also required between state and federal courts and between federal courts. Lynde v. Lynde: Judgment must be final to get Full Faith and Credit-­‐ no relitigation. Adam v. Saenger: Full Faith and Credit is limited to jurisdictional issues, regardless of error of law or notice. If a plaintiff wishes to avail himself of local jurisdictional process, he should also be amendable to suit in local courts on causes of action related to and growing out of his suit. Fauntleroy v. Lum: Recognitions and enforcement by one state of a judgment rendered in any other state is compelled by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution (article IV, section 1). This Clause requires a court in a second state (“F2”) to give a judgment from the first state (“F1”) the same effect it would receive in the first state. The scope of a defense based on public policy is very limited. Thus, even though it would have violated F@ public policy to permit the original suit on the cause of the action, this is NO defense to the F1 judgment. •
Francis v. Francis: Tennessee case adopting Fauntleroy v. Lum. 3 Treinies v. Sunshine Mining Co.: A F1 judgment will not be enforced if there is a later, inconsistent judgment between the same parties relating to the same cause of action; i.e. “last in time” supersedes any earlier, inconsistent judgment. [Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., Rest. 2d §114]. FORUM NON CONVENIENS: a court in its discretion may also refuse to exercise its jurisdiction-­‐-­‐i.e. stay or dismiss and action-­‐-­‐if it determines that the forum is an unfair or seriously inconvenient place for a trial as to any party and that a more convenient place is available. [Rest. 2d §84]. It is part of the courts inherent supervisory power over its own jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s preferred forum is given great weight, although the court will consider plaintiff’s motives for choosing the forum. No real forum non conveniens in Federal because there is “transfer”. A statutory extension of forum non conveniens is found in 28 USC §1404 (a), which provides that a federal court that determines that it is not a “fair and appropriate” place for a trial of an action may transfer the action to another appropriate federal district, if the action could have been filed there originally. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert: must be two forums with jurisdiction, then you consider: PUBLIC FACTORS AND PRIVATE FACTORS Jury Duty Ease and Access to Proof Court Congestion Process Served Forum at Home With State Law Witnesses Viewing Premises Zurich v. Inman: Tennessee adopts Gilbert COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL: Beaty v. McGraw: to prove collateral estoppel, the party must show: 1.
Identical issue 2.
Already decided 3.
Final judgment 4.
Same parties RES JUDICATA: Combs v. Combs: “in rem” judgments do not satisfy res judicata and they are not exportable. IN REM and QUASI IN REM: Combs v. Combs: “in rem” judgments do not satisfy res judicata and they are not exportable. ERIE v. THOMPKINS and KLAXON v. SENTOR: Twin aims: (1) to prevent forum shopping, (2) everything equitable •
Will apply Federal procedural rules •
In diversity actions, the court will apply substantive laws of the state where the Federal Court sits. KLAXON: A federal district court effectively sits as a trial court of the state in deciding “substantive” issues. Accordingly, it must adopt the state’s choice-­‐of-­‐
law rules and apply them as its own; there are no federal choice-­‐of-­‐law rules. Federal court in diversity cases will apply Law of Conflicts from state where the court sits. 4