Haag vs.

Barnes

Topic: Judicial Choice of Law: Choice of Law: Modern Approaches

Facts: Dorothy Haag (complainant) is resident of New York City, while Norman Barnes (defendant) is a
resident of Illinois. In 1954 in New York, complainant was hired by defendant through an agency to do
work for him as law secretary, while he was in New York on one of his business trips. They engaged in
sexual relations and complainant became pregnant. In 1955, the baby was born in Chicago, Illinois. In
1956, complainant returned to Chicago and signed an agreement which provided for the support of her
and her child. Under the agreement, defendant promised to pay a total of $275 a month, while the child
is alive and until she attains the age of sixteen years. The agreement also provided that, it shall be
interpreted, construed and governed by the laws of the State of Illinois. In 1959, complainant filed a
complaint with the New York City Criminal Courts against defendant. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint on the ground that the action is precluded by the laws of the State of Illinois which, the
parties agreed, would govern their rights under the agreement. Complainant, on the other hand, contends
that New York not Illinois law applies. She further states that her agreement with defendant was not
binding since it was not court approved and may not bar her from initiating a suit under New York laws.
The motion to dismiss was granted. Complainant appeals.

Main Issue: Whether the law of New York or of Illinois applies.

Ratio: Illinois law applies.

Applying the traditional conflicts rule, Illinois law shall apply. The traditional view was that the law
governing a contract is to be determined by the intention of the parties or the place of making or
performance. Here, the agreement between complainant and defendant provides that it "shall in all
respects be interpreted, construed and governed by the laws of the State of Illinois." It was also drawn
and signed by the complainant in Illinois.

Applying the modern view, Illinois law should still apply. The more modern view lays emphasis rather upon
the law of the place `which has the most significant contacts with the matter in dispute.” Among these
other Illinois contacts are the following: (1) both parties are designated in the agreement as being "of
Chicago, Illinois", and the defendant's place of business is and always has been in Illinois; (2) the child was
born in Illinois; (3) the persons designated to act as agents for the principals (except for a third alternate)
are Illinois residents, as are the attorneys for both parties who drew the agreement; and (4) all
contributions for support always have been, and still are being, made from Chicago.

The New York contacts have less weight and significance. The New York contacts are: (1) the child and
mother presently live in New York and (2) the "liaison" took place in New York. When these contacts are
measured against the parties' clearly expressed intention to have their agreement governed by Illinois law
and the more numerous and more substantial Illinois contacts, Illinois law should apply.

Other issues: Whether enforcement of the agreement between complainant and defendant under
Illinois law is contrary to public policy?

Ratio: No. The enforcement of the agreement under Illinois law is not contrary to public policy.

The New York Paternity Law requires something more than "the bare necessities” for the support of the
child and the protection of the welfare of the child. Here, enforcement of the support agreement under
Illinois law and the refusal to allow its provisions to be reopened in the present proceeding does not
violate public policy. Whether we read the agreement as a whole, or look only to the financial
provisions concerned ($275 a month until the child reaches the age of 16), we must conclude that "the
welfare of the child" is fully protected.

The public policy of this State having been satisfied, there is no reason why we should not enforce the
provisions of the parties' support agreement under Illinois law and treat the agreement as a bar to the
present action for support.

Disposition: Order affirmed.