Haag v. Barnes
9 N.Y.2d 554, 216 N.Y.S.2d 65, 175 N.E.2d 441 (1961)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In contract cases involving a choice of law, courts will apply the law of the jurisdiction with the most significant contacts to the matter in dispute, giving heavy weight to the parties' expressed intent unless doing so would violate the strong public policy of the forum state.
Facts:
- In 1954, Dorothy Haag, a New York resident, and Norman Barnes, an Illinois resident, began a relationship in New York.
- Haag became pregnant and, after a brief time in California, went to Chicago, Illinois, to be near Barnes.
- The child was born in Chicago in December 1955, and Barnes paid the hospital expenses.
- On January 12, 1956, in Chicago, Haag and Barnes executed a formal child support agreement drafted by their respective Illinois attorneys.
- The agreement required Barnes to pay $275 per month for the child's support until she reached age 16.
- The agreement included a clause releasing Barnes from all future actions regarding the child's support.
- The contract also contained a choice-of-law provision stating it would be "governed by the laws of the State of Illinois."
- Barnes fully complied with the agreement, making all payments from Chicago, and provided financial support in excess of the contract's requirements.
- Haag and the child later returned to live in New York.
Procedural Posture:
- Dorothy Haag initiated a paternity and support proceeding against Norman Barnes in the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York (a trial court).
- Barnes filed a motion to dismiss the proceeding, arguing it was barred by their prior Illinois agreement.
- The Court of Special Sessions granted Barnes's motion to dismiss.
- Haag appealed the dismissal to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's order of dismissal.
- Haag then appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a child support agreement, validly executed in Illinois and containing an Illinois choice-of-law clause, bar a subsequent paternity and support action in New York, where such an agreement would be unenforceable without court approval?
Opinions:
Majority - Fuld, J.
Yes, the agreement bars the New York action. In a choice-of-law dispute, the governing law is that of the jurisdiction which has the most significant contacts with the matter. Here, both the traditional rule focusing on the parties' intent and the modern 'center of gravity' test point to Illinois law. The agreement was made in Illinois, the child was born there, payments originated there, and most importantly, the parties explicitly chose Illinois law to govern their contract. While New York's contacts include the mother and child's current residence and the beginning of the liaison, they are far less significant. Enforcing the Illinois agreement does not violate New York's public policy, as the financial support provided is substantial and ensures the child's welfare, satisfying the core concern of New York's paternity laws.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies New York's adoption of the 'center of gravity' or 'grouping of contacts' approach for choice-of-law issues in contract disputes, moving away from rigid, traditional rules. It establishes that a choice-of-law clause is a significant factor in the analysis, though not singularly dispositive. The case also clarifies the high threshold for invoking the public policy exception, requiring that enforcement of the foreign law be a genuine 'affront' to the forum state's policy, not merely different from it. This provides more predictability for parties entering into multi-state agreements.
