Several cases have come out recently relating to "governing law and jurisdiction."
LIVONIA PROPERTY HOLDINGS, L.L.C., v 12840-12976 FARMINGTON ROAD HOLDINGS, L.L.C., 717 F.Supp.2d 724 (E.D.Mich. 2010)
LARRY R. TALTON and STACIE C. TALTON, v BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING LP, No. 11-14512, United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
It is true that the Livonia Properties opinion contains the statement that "there is ample authority to support the proposition that 'a litigant who is not a party to an assignment lacks standing to challenge that assignment, '" Livonia Properties, 399 F. App'x at 102 (quoting Livonia PropertiesHoldings, LLC v. 12840-12976 Farmington Road Holdings, LLC, 717 F.Supp.2d 724, 736-37 (E.D. Mich. 2010)); but when read carefully the case does not stand for such a general and unqualified position. The Court believes, therefore, that Livonia Properties does not compel the conclusion that a foreclosure plaintiff can never attack the foreclosure by challenging the validity of an underlying assignment.
BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v BASSMAN FBT, L.L.C., and MAXIMUM MANAGEMENT, LLC, 2012 IL App (2d) 110729
We are cognizant that we have already concluded that defendants are not entitled to rely on the PSA's choice-of-law provision; however, we do not view the application of New York law under these circumstances as an invocation by defendants. Quite simply, plaintiff was a party to a transaction that took place under and contained a choice-of-law provision expressly contemplating the application of New York law. At oral argument, plaintiff suggested that the purportedly significant contacts between the transaction and this state should trump the parties' choice of law in the PSA. This is not the law. See Westchester Fire Insurance Co. v. G. Heileman Brewing Co., 321 Ill.App.3d 622, 628 (2000) (holding that choice-of-law principles control only in the absence of an effective choice-of-law provision). Indeed, giving effect to a choice-of-law provision only when it is consistent with choice-of-law rules would render such provisions ineffective, since they would apply only when (in this state) the most-significant-relationship test already selected the law of the jurisdiction chosen in the choice-of-law provision. Put differently, choice-of-law provisions exist to negate choice-of-law rules. In any event, by participating in transactions under the PSA, it is plaintiff's actions, rather than defendants', that make New York law applicable to this issue. We now turn to the issues raised by the parties.