| 210.82.103.* |
1楼 *一般内容 1）当事人（litigant) 2）重要相关事实（necessary and relevant facts) 3）原、被告主张(Claim and Assert—fact and law) 4) 诉讼过程 (Proceedings) 5）问题争点 (Issue---fact and law） 6）法院主张 (Holding ） answer and main reasons for 5 7）分析 (Reasoning) relevant rules the application of those rules 8）法院的结论（conclusion) 9) 判例所阐明或创立的法律原则或理论 （principles and theories) 10) concurring opinion 配合意见 dissenting opinion 反对意见 obiter dictum 随附意见 |
|
|
- 共有4篇贴子
| 210.82.103.* |
2楼 86N.J.Super.107, 206 A.2d 171 1965 |
|
|
| 210.82.103.* |
3楼 86N.J.Super.107, 206 A.2d 171 1965 LABRECQUE, J.A.D. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Probate Division awarding the balance in two out-of-state bank accounts to decedent’s son Philip Damato. The facts are not in dispute. Decedent died on November 6, 1960, a resident of Paterson, New Jersey. Although he had been engaged in the wastepaper business in the Paterson area for many years, he also had business interests in Florida, including the operation of a small stable of race horses. His will was admitted to probate by the Surrogate of Passaic County, his son James Damato qualifying as the executor thereof. On July 26, 1962, the executor filed a verified complaint praying, inter alia, for instructions as to the disposition of the balances remaining in two savings accounts in the Bank of Hollywood, Hollywood, Florida, which are the subject of the present controversy…. Both Philip and James Damato were sons of the decedent. Philip worked for his father in the Paterson Business and never knew of the accounts until after the death of his father. The passbooks for both accounts remained in decedent’s possession and were found among his papers in Florida. In awarding the balance in each account to Philip, the trial judge held that the transactions were governed by the law of Florida, their situs, and since Florida had adopted the rule of In re Totten, they were effective pass the balance in each account to Philip upon the death of the decedent…. The law is well settled that the creation of an inter vivos trust in money or securities, as distinguished from a testamentary trust, is governed by the law of the situs of the money or securities. The validity of an inter vivos trust of choses in action is determined by the law of the place where the transaction takes place. The savings bank trust doctrine which the trial judge found to be dispositive of issue before him was set forth in its present form in In re Totten, supra, to the effect that: A deposit by one person of his own money in his own name and as trustee for another, standing alone, does not establish an irrevocable trust during the lifetime of the depositor. It is a tentative trust merely, revocable at will, until the depositor dies or completes the gift in his lifetime by some unequivocal act or declaration, such as delivery of the passbook or notice to the beneficiary. In case the depositor dies before the beneficiary without revocation, or some decisive act or declaration of disaffirmance, the presumption arises that an absolute trust is created as to the balance on hand at the death of the depositor. In Cutts v. Najdrowski the court held that where a New Jersey resident opened an account in a New York savings bank in his name in trust for another, since the transaction was effective there, it was effective here to pass title to the balance in the account at the depositor’s death, to the other person named, under the Totten trust doctrine. It was so held notwithstanding that such a transaction, had it been consummated her by a New Jersey resident, would have been invalid to pass title as violative of our statute of wills or as an ineffective gift inter vivos. Since then, however, N.J.S.A. 17:9A-216 has been held effective to pass valid title to the balance, at death, in such an account, to the beneficiary named…. Cutts was followed in Conry v. Maloney, where a New York savings account was again involved and, through application of the law of situs, it was held that the cestui, a niece, took the balance in an account opened by the decedent “in trust for “her, to the exclusion of the decedent’s widow. |
|
|
| 210.82.103.* |
4楼 Appellant urges that in thus applying Florida substantive law, instead of Florida conflict lf laws, the trial judge fell into error. Specifically, it is argued that in Seymour the court was passing upon the validity, as a trust, of an account established by a domiciliary of Florida in a Florida bank, whereas we are here concerned with an account opened in Florida by a domiciliary of New Jersey. Under Florida conflicts law, the argument continues, the doctrine of mobilia sequuntur personam would be applied. Hanson V. Denckla, 100 So. 2d 378 (Fla. Sup.Ct.1956), reversed on grounds of lack of jurisdiction in Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S.235 (1958). Turning, then, to the law of decedent’s domicile, New Jersey, appellant invokes Swetland V.Swetland as holding the transaction to be ineffective as a trust of the accounts in question. Appellant thus seeks to invoke the doctrine of renvoi to defeat respondent’s claim…. However, we find it unnecessary to determine the Florida conflicts rule which would be applicable in view of the conclusions which follow. We are satisfied that the trial judge correctly ruled that the substantive law of Florida should be applied to the transaction in question. In neither Cutts nor Conry did our courts proceed any further than to apply the internal law of the place where the transaction took place. The transaction rule was also followed in Hooton v.Needl, supra. In the Restatement, Conflict of Laws, §7,p.11 (1934), the rule as to conflicts is set forth as follows: Except as stated in §8 [concerning matters involving title to land and the validity of divorce decrees], when there is a difference in the Conflict lf Laws of two states whose laws are involved in a problem, the rule of Conflict of Laws of the forum is applied: (a) in all cases where as a preliminary to determining the choice of law it is necessary to determine the quality and character of legal ideas, these are determined by the forum according to its law; (b) where in making the choice of law to govern a certain situation the law of another state is to be applied, since the only Conflict of Laws used in the determination of the case is the Conflict of Laws of the forum, the foreign law to be applied is the law applicable to the matter in hand and not the Conflict of Laws of the foreign state. In comment (d) to subsection (b) the learned authors note that, under the rule stated, the court of the forum, in a matter involving a contract, applies only the contract law of the other state, and this “may result in a decision contrary to that which would be reached by a court in that state, the law of which is being applied, b reason lf the fact that a different Conflict of Laws rule prevails in the latter state.” The rule set forth in the Restatement seems grounded in reason for, if appellant’s views were to be upheld, the courts would be faced with a possible unending circuity. Thus, if the Florida conflicts rule would refer the matter back to New Jersey, New Jersey, applying its full body of law, including its conflict rules, would again refer to the law of Florida because of the holdings in Cutts, Conry and Hooton. The circular process would then begin anew and continue ad infinitum. Such was the problem posed In re Tallmadge, 109 Misc. 696, 181 N.Y.S.336 (Supp.Ct. 1919), where application of the renvoi doctrine was denied on account of its inconsistency with common law theory of the conflict of laws, its fundamental unsoundness and the chaos which would result from its application to conflicts arising between the laws of the several states. (181 N.Y.S.,at p.348) Accordingly, we hold that where, in a proceeding in this State, the validity of a transaction in a foreign state------except on involving title to land or the balidity of a divorce, as to which we make no determination-----is, by virtue of our conflict of laws principles, made ot depend upon the laws of such state, the foreign law to be applied is the law applicable to the matter in hand not the conflict of laws of the foreign state…. |
|
|
