Questions on the Land Taboo
1) Remember the criticisms that were made in class of the 1st
Restatement's situs rule for choice of law governing real property?
Indeed, as the book
suggests, isn't the application of Connecticut law to the facts in
Clarke arguably unconstitutional, given Connecticut's meager interests?
Given this, isn't it odd to argue that
only the Connecticut court could have jurisdiction to determine the
rights of South Carolinians in Connecticut land?
2) Even if one accepts that only a Connecticut court can have
jurisdiction to determine the rights of South Carolinians in
Connecticut land, doesn't it follow from Durfee v Duke that the
assertion of jurisdiction over the property by the South Carolina court
in Clarke is res judicata
and so now must be given Full Faith and Credit by a Connecticut court?
3) What did the plaintiff do wrong in Fall v Eastin? Was the problem
that she appealed to the Washington Commissioner's deed instead of the
Washington decree? Or would she have been any better off by appealing
to the decree?
4) Isn't the upshot of Fall v Eastin the evisceration of Clarke?
Imagine that the Washington court had ordered E.W. Fall to deed
the property to his wife and, threatened by contempt sanctions, he did
deed the property. Wouldn't the Nebraska court be bound then?