Defendant: Harold Auten Concept: Brief facts: Margarite Auten sues Harold Auten in New York to recover support for her and her children that Harold owed by virtue of a separation agreement. The Autens were married in England. Harold deserted her, went to America, obtained a Mexican divorce, then married another woman. Margarite went to New York, where she and Harold came to a separation agreement which provided that Harold was to pay to a trustee, for Margarites account, 50 pounds sterling (British currency) a month for her support and that of their 2 children. The agreement also provided that they were not to sue each other in any action relating to their separation, and Margarite would not cause any complaint against Harold in any jurisdiction because of his alleged divorce and remarriage. Harold made a few payments only, so Margarite filed a petition for separation in England, charging Harold with adultery. Harold was served in New York with process in that suit and he was ordered to pay alimony pendent lite. This English case never proceeded to trial. Margarite instituted the instant suit to recover support due under the agreement. Doctrine: Center of Gravity/Grouping of Contacts Theory: The courts, instead of regarding as conclusive the parties intention or the place of making or performance, lay emphasis rather upon the law of the place which has the most significant contacts with the matter in dispute. FACTS: 1.1917: Harold and Margarite Auten were married in England, living there with their 2 children until 1931. 2.1931: According to Margarite, Harold deserted her, came to America, obtained a Mexican divorce, then married another woman. 3.1933: They came to a separation agreement, which provided that: o Harold was to pay to a trustee, for the account of Margarite, 50 (50 pounds sterling) a month for the support of Margarite and her 2 children. o They were to live separate and apart. o They were not to sue each other in any action relating to their separation. o Margarite would not cause any complaint to be lodged against Harold in any jurisdiction because of the alleged divorce or remarriage. 4.Harold made a few payments only, leaving Margarite and her children destitute. 5.August 1934: Margarite filed a petition for separation in an English court, charging Harold with adultery 6.December 4, 1936: Harold was served in New York with process in that suit. 7.July 1938: Harold was ordered to pay alimony pendente lite. 8.This English case never proceeded to trial. 9.1947: Margarite brought the instant suit to recover $26,564 representing support due under the agreement, from January 1, 1935 to September 1, 1947. CFI dismissed the complaint.
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower courts
decision ISSUES: Which law applied as to the issue of whether Margarites commencement of the English case (petition for separation with charge of adultery) constituted a rescission and repudiation of the separation agreement? English RATIO: Based on the center of gravity or grouping of contacts theory of the conflict of laws, English law governs. The decisions in New York jurisprudence as to which law applies to contracts with elements in different jurisdictions show several approaches. o Most of the cases rely on these general rules, which were thought to be conclusive:
"All matters bearing upon the execution, the
interpretation and the validity of contracts are determined by the law of the place where the contract is made"
"All matters connected with performance are
regulated by the law of the place where the contract, by its terms, is to be performed."
What constitutes a breach of the contract and
what circumstances excuse a breach are considered matters of performance, governable, within this rule, by the law of the place of performance. o However, recent decisions have innovated by employing a method that rationalizes the choice of law. This method has been called the center of gravity or grouping of contracts theory. The courts, instead of regarding as conclusive the parties intention or the place of making or performance, lay emphasis rather upon the law of the place which has the most significant contacts with the matter in dispute. This method may seem less predictable but it gives to the jurisdiction having the most interest in the problem, control over the legal issues arising from a specific set of circumstances, allowing the forum to apply the rules of the jurisdiction most intimately connected with the outcome of the particular case. This has been thought to effect the probable intention of the parties when making their contract. In the instant case: o England has the most significant contacts with the case.
The agreement was between British subjects.
They were married in England.
They lived there as a family for 14 years.
Harold abandoned his family and was in the US
on a temporary visa.
Margarites sole purpose was to get Harold to
agree to support their family.
The money was to be paid to a trustee in New
York but those who stood to benefit live in England.
o o
The agreement refers to British currency (pounds
sterling.) New Yorks only connection to the case is where the agreement was made , and where the trustee to whom the money was to be paid held office. It is unlikely that Margarite intended to subject herself to the law of another state which she was not familiar with.
English law must be applied.
It is for the courts of that state to determine whether Margarites institution of a case constituted a breach of their agreement.
The Court noted that based on English law, there
was no breach of the agreement by Margarite.
DISPOSITIVE: The judgment of the Appellate Division
and that of Special Term insofar as they dismiss the complaint should be reversed, with costs in all courts, and the matter remitted for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.