since when does CAL courts use NY laws? Are the judges in CAL working with CAL laws or NY laws?lol
MBNA America Bank, N.A. v. Newman, No. B190956, 2007 WL 882296 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2007)
I’m sorry, Breeze. It’s not always clear at times. I wasn’t sure if by “since when”, you wanted the very oldest or most recent. I arbitrarily decided that the most recent would be the most useful.
In the referenced case, The California Court of Appeal held that a lower court properly honored a credit card agreement's Delaware choice-of-law provision in ruling that the lender effectively amended the agreement to include an arbitration clause by enclosing notice of the amendment within the borrower's periodic statement.
On appeal, there were two issues: (1) whether there was substantial evidence to support the trial court's determination that Newman received notice of the amendment adding the arbitration clause; and (2)
whether the trial court properly applied Delaware law to the question of whether the "bill stuffer" was an effective means of amending the cardholder agreement.
The Court affirmed the trial court ruling on both issues.
Second, the Court held that the trial court properly honored the cardholder agreement's Delaware choice-of-law provision because Newman's citation to Badie v. Bank of America, 79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 273 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)
failed to establish that Delaware law allowing bill stuffer amendments
conflicted with a fundamental policy of California.
Moreover, the Court found that
even if there were a policy conflict, Delaware law would still apply because Delaware had a greater interest in the issue than California. Delaware had a greater interest because it was home to MBNA and "has demonstrated by statute its concern that Delaware law should apply to claims between Delaware banks and their cardholders." Do you think it's possible that NY creditors might have an interest more profound that CA, where there are none?
South Dakota has a statute that is virtually identical to the Delaware statute cited by the Court in determining that Delaware had a greater interest in the issue than California. The South Dakota statute provides: "A revolving loan account arrangement between a bank located in the state of South Dakota and a debtor shall be governed by the laws of the state of South Dakota." S.D. Codified Laws § 51A-12-12.
And the Court went on to say why a similar decision could be reached in applying that statute.
Now, I’m not going to continue this with you, regardless of what you post. It was sufficient to address the issue for readers. I no longer see the humor and believe that YAG is right – you’ll flop somewhere else and grasp at something else, contradict yourself and this will go on forever, but not with me, not unless you lapse into more of the character assaults that are your substitute for reasoned discussion. This has all become academic. The OP is gone, the facts could apply to any number of tort or contract disputes, and you're determined to have your way. Fine. Enjoy.
The attorneys and recovery professionals will understand. What surprises me is that you chose to post CA’s borrowing statute, and you have gloated about using AZ’s borrowing statute in your own defense. I realize now that you
know what you’re discussing, but you don’t
understand - like memorizing something for a school test and forgetting it when the test is over. Discussing conflict of laws/choice of laws would be as productive as talking to a wall. Read the Restatements (first and second) of the Law of Conflict of Laws and then come back and pose your rhetorical question to DC. The problem is that you won’t read, and there’ll be nobody here when you return - nobody who cares.
BTW - I believe it's "since when
do CAL courts . . .", and I believe the Restatement (first) was in the '30's - NY has been a formative influence - and now you know.
