The highest courts of two states recently adopted Sections of the Restatement Second of Conflict of Laws and the Restatement Second of Judgments. Summaries of those opinions follow.
In Pacific Western Bank v. Badger, 2016 WL 6650955, the Supreme Court of Nevada expressly adopted Restatement Second of Conflict of Laws § 68. In that case, the court, in considering a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by a creditor, was faced with the question of whether funds in a 26 U.S.C. § 529 account could be considered a “debt” and could be “subject to execution and garnishment in Nevada despite their physical location elsewhere.” The court, adopting § 68, answered that question in the affirmative, holding that, under that Restatement provision, “the funds contained in the 529 accounts [were] a debt, not a chattel. As such, the funds [were] subject to execution and garnishment in Nevada regardless of [the] location of the funds in New Mexico.” The court noted that it “consistently looks to the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws for guidance, and has adopted its provisions on many occasions.”
In Bowen ex rel. Doe v. Arnold, 2016 WL 5491022, the Supreme Court of Tennessee adopted Restatement Second of Judgments §§ 29 and 85. In that case, a mother, individually and on behalf of her minor son who participated in a mentoring program affiliated with Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Tennessee, brought an intentional-tort action, inter alia, against her son’s mentor, among others, alleging that the mentor sexually molested her son. While that action was pending, the defendant was convicted, in a separate criminal trial, of sexual battery and rape of the plaintiff’s son, and that conviction was affirmed on appeal. The trial court in the instant case then granted the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, finding that, based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel, the defendant was precluded—on the basis of his criminal conviction—from arguing that he did not rape and sexually batter the plaintiff’s son. Affirming, this court held that it would “abolish the mutuality requirement for defensive and offensive collateral estoppel in Tennessee, adopt sections 29 and 85 of the Restatement (Second) of Judgments, and affirm the trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment against [the defendant] on the issue of ‘whether he raped and sexually battered’” the plaintiff’s son.