Also known as: situs · realty situs · location of real property · situs of real property
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
The physical location of real property that governs choice-of-law determinations for interests in land. Courts apply the law that the courts of that location would apply to questions such as the nature of interests created by mortgages or the effect of transfers.
Skylar Sullivan, a resident of State A, granted a mortgage on land located entirely in State B to Summit Bank. When a dispute arose over the nature of the interest created by the mortgage, the court looked to the law that courts in State B would apply. That determination fixed the rights of the parties in the land.
Steven Silva and Stella Shapiro, both domiciled in State C, executed a deed conveying land in State D. When a later purchaser challenged the validity of the transfer, the court evaluated the contacts of each state with the land and the parties. The analysis identified State D as having the most significant relationship to the land for the particular issue.
Sean Steele and Serena Soto obtained a divorce decree in State E that divided rental properties they owned in State F. When Sean later refused to execute deeds, Carla filed a quiet title action in State F. The court gave effect to the State E decree as it fixed the parties' rights in the land located in State F.
In this personal injury action, plaintiff Marilyn S. White alleged that she was a passenger in a truck driven by defendant Robert W. White. They were traveling south on Interstate 35 near the city of Louisville, Texas, when the defendant lost control of his truck, overturning it and causing injury to her body. The petition alleged that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by negligent acts of the defendant. He failed to keep a proper lookout for vehicles properly on the highway. He followed the vehicle in front of him too closely in violation of specific Texas statutes which were pleaded and attached. Robert White drove his vehicle into a space between the divided roadway and failed to keep his vehicle only upon the righthand roadway in violation of another specific Texas statute which was pleaded. He drove his vehicle at a speed that was greater than reasonable and prudent under the circumstances in violation of another specific Texas statute which was also pleaded and attached. The plaintiff pleaded that as a result of said negligent actions she suffered broken bones and other injuries to the body resulting in permanent disability, medical expenses, and lost income with her damages totaling some $200,000.00. The petition further alleged that at the time of the accident the defendants Robert W. White and Edward White were engaged in a joint venture or partnership operating a long-haul truck tractor-trailer. The plaintiff was employed by the defendants to help operate the truck. At the time of the accident she was within the scope of her employment. The defendants failed to carry Workmen’s Compensation Insurance, and that she has elected to proceed in the District Court. Attached to the petition and made a part thereof was the Motor Carrier Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability Certificate of Insurance. The Corporation Commission of Oklahoma certified that Employers Casualty Corporation had issued to Edward White of Fort Cobb, Oklahoma an insurance policy covering the obligations imposed upon the insured by the Oklahoma Motor Vehicle provisions. Employers Casualty Corporation is not a party to this appeal because the cause against it was dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiff. In response to the petition the defendants Robert W. White and Edward White filed special demurrers. They demurred to the petition on the grounds that the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue and that the petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants. In arguing that the demurrers should be sustained both Robert and Edward White argued that the plaintiff Marilyn S. White lacks the capacity to sue because she is the wife of Robert W. White and under the laws of Texas one spouse may not bring a personal injury action against the other. This fact does not appear on the face of the petition. The defendants also argued that in fact the plaintiff was not their employee but was a co-employer. They relied upon facts which do not appear upon the face of the petition. The trial court sustained the demurrers to the petition and dismissed the case with prejudice. The plaintiff appealed, and the matter came before the Supreme Court of Oklahoma for review.
View caseThe physical location of the land gives the situs state the dominant regulatory interest in titles, recording systems, and marketability. Courts therefore apply the law that the courts of the situs would apply to determine the nature and effect of interests in that land.
Supporting sources
For issues involving interests in land, the most-significant-relationship test ordinarily points to the situs because that state has the primary interest in regulating titles and protecting local land markets. Other contacts, such as the place of execution or the parties' domiciles, rarely displace the situs.
Supporting sources
A court with personal jurisdiction over the spouses may adjudicate their rights in out-of-state land. The forum must give full faith and credit to that adjudication between the parties even though the land lies elsewhere.
Supporting sources
…2 Beale, Conflict of Laws, section 250.1, page 972, states: “The revocation of a will is governed by the law of the state of situs of the land.” Restatement of the Law, Conflict of Laws, section 250, says: “The effectiveness of an intended revocation of a will of an interest in land is determined by the law of the…