In Re Damato
206 A.2d 171, 86 N.J. Super. 107 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a forum state's conflict of laws principles direct it to apply the law of a foreign state to determine the validity of a transaction, it must apply the substantive law of the foreign state, not the foreign state's own conflict of laws rules. This rejection of the 'renvoi' doctrine prevents circular legal reasoning.
Facts:
- Joseph Damato, a resident of Paterson, New Jersey, had business interests in Florida.
- On February 7, 1957, Damato opened a savings account in the Bank of Hollywood, Florida, titled 'Joseph Damato in trust for Philip Damato.'
- On September 24, 1957, Damato opened a second savings account in the same bank with the identical title.
- Damato funded the accounts with his own money, some of which was transferred from his New Jersey business account.
- Damato made one withdrawal from an account for his own personal use.
- Damato retained sole possession of the passbooks for both accounts, which were found among his papers in Florida after his death.
- His son, Philip Damato, the named beneficiary, was unaware of the accounts' existence until after his father's death.
- Joseph Damato died on November 6, 1960.
Procedural Posture:
- Joseph Damato's will was admitted to probate in Passaic County, New Jersey, and his son James Damato qualified as the executor.
- The executor, James Damato, filed a complaint in the Probate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court seeking instructions on how to distribute the funds in two Florida bank accounts.
- The Probate Division (trial court) awarded the balances in the accounts to the named beneficiary, Philip Damato.
- The executor, James Damato, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
When determining the validity of an inter vivos trust created through a Florida bank account by a New Jersey domiciliary, does a New Jersey court apply Florida's substantive law on trusts or Florida's conflict of laws rules?
Opinions:
Majority - Labrecque, J.A.D.
A New Jersey court applies Florida's substantive law on trusts. The validity of an inter vivos trust of personal property, such as a bank account, is governed by the law of the situs of the property. In this case, the bank accounts were located in Florida, making Florida law applicable. Florida has adopted the 'Totten trust' doctrine, which presumes that a deposit made by one person 'in trust for' another creates a tentative trust that becomes absolute for the beneficiary upon the depositor's death. The appellant argued that the court should apply Florida's conflict of laws rules, which might refer the case back to New Jersey law (a concept known as 'renvoi'). The court explicitly rejects this approach, adopting the rule from the Restatement, Conflict of Laws, § 7(b). It holds that to avoid an 'unending circuity' where jurisdictions endlessly refer a legal question back and forth, the forum court must apply the foreign state's internal, substantive law, not its conflict of laws rules. Therefore, applying Florida's substantive law on Totten trusts, the funds pass to the beneficiary Philip Damato.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies New Jersey's rejection of the 'renvoi' doctrine for inter vivos trusts of movable property, providing clarity and predictability in conflict of laws analysis. By mandating the application of a foreign state's substantive law rather than its choice-of-law rules, the court prevents a potential logical paradox and streamlines litigation. This precedent instructs future courts to look directly to the internal law of the situs of the transaction, simplifying the legal analysis and ensuring that the outcome is determined by the law of the jurisdiction most connected to the property itself. The case serves as a key example of how courts handle choice-of-law problems to achieve finality and avoid theoretical legal loops.
