Conflict of Laws Flashcards

A testator domiciled in New York at death devises a parcel of land located in Florida in her will. A dispute arises over the validity, effect, and interpretation of the devise. Under EPTL 3-5.1, which law governs?

Answer: The law of the jurisdiction where the land is located, including its conflict-of-laws rules

Under EPTL 3-5.1(b)(1), the law of the jurisdiction where the real property is located governs wills disposing of real property and the manner in which it descends in intestacy.

A testator domiciled in New Jersey at death owns bank accounts and securities and leaves them by will. A dispute arises over the construction of the bequest, and the matter is heard in a New York Surrogate's Court. Under EPTL 3-5.1, which law governs the validity, effect, and interpretation of the disposition of personal property?

Answer: The law of the testator's domicile at death, New Jersey

Under EPTL 3-5.1(b)(2), the law of the jurisdiction in which the decedent was domiciled at death governs wills disposing of personal property, and the manner in which personal property devolves in intestacy.

A testator domiciled in Italy signs a will in Italy that satisfies Italian formalities but does not meet New York's witness requirements in EPTL 3-2.1. The testator later moves to New York and dies domiciled there. Can the will be admitted to probate in New York as to formal validity?

Answer: Yes, if it was in writing, signed by the testator, and executed and attested in accordance with the local law of the place of execution

Under EPTL 3-5.1(c), a will is formally valid if it was in writing and signed by the testator and was executed and attested in accordance with the local law of New York, or of the place of execution, or of the place of the testator's domicile at execution or at death.

Which statement correctly contrasts how EPTL 3-5.1 treats foreign conflict-of-laws rules for the disposition of real property versus the formal validity of a will?

Answer: For dispositions of real property, 'law' of the situs includes its conflict-of-laws rules; for formal validity, only the 'local law' of the listed places applies

EPTL 3-5.1(b)(1) refers to the 'law' of the situs, which includes its conflict-of-laws rules (renvoi may apply), while 3-5.1(c) refers to 'local law,' which excludes conflict-of-laws rules.

A couple living in Texas satisfied all requirements for a valid common-law marriage under Texas law. They later move to New York and one spouse petitions for divorce in New York Supreme Court. Is the marriage valid in New York?

Answer: Yes, because a marriage valid where it was contracted is generally recognized in New York, unless it offends a New York statute or natural law

New York recognizes a common-law marriage validly contracted in another state, because a marriage valid where celebrated is valid in New York unless it violates New York's positive law (such as the incest and bigamy prohibitions) or natural law.

A student born and raised in New York attends college in Vermont for four years. She lives in a dormitory, works part time in Vermont, and keeps her New York driver's license, voter registration, and her parents' New York home as her base, intending to return to New York after graduation. In which state is she domiciled?

Answer: New York, because domicile requires physical presence and intent to remain, and her domicile of origin persists until a new one is acquired

Domicile is a person's true, fixed home, where he or she intends to remain or return; a person has only one domicile at a time, and the domicile of origin continues until a new domicile is established by physical presence combined with intent to make it a permanent home.

In Babcock v Jackson, 12 NY2d 473 (1963), a New York guest was injured when the New York host's car, garaged and insured in New York, crashed in Ontario during a trip that began and was to end in New York. Ontario's guest statute would bar the claim. What did the Court of Appeals hold?

Answer: New York law governed, rejecting the rigid place-of-the-wrong rule in favor of the jurisdiction with the greater interest

The Court of Appeals rejected the traditional rule that the law of the place of the tort governs, and applied the law of the jurisdiction with the greatest interest in the issue, New York, allowing recovery.