Auten v Auten (1922) Fuld, J.
Plaintiff: Margarite Auten
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.
The agreement refers to British currency (pounds sterling.)
o 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.
o 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.
o It is for the courts of that state to determine whether Margarites
institution of a case constituted a breach of their agreement.
o 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.
1