Opinion ID: 2617717
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Does the Alaska or California Statute of Limitations Apply to this Action?

Text: LJJ argues that if state statutes of limitations apply to § 1914 actions, the superior court erred in applying Alaska's one-year limitation rather than California's three-year limitation. Since LJJ did not raise this issue in the trial court, she poses her argument in terms of a constitutional due process violation. A state violates federal due process if it applies its own substantive law to a transaction with little or no relationship to the forum state. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 105 S.Ct. 2965, 86 L.Ed.2d 628 (1985). A state must have a `significant contact or aggregation of contacts' to the claims ..., contacts `creating state interests,' in order to ensure that the choice of [state] law is not arbitrary or unfair. Shutts, 472 U.S. at 821, 105 S.Ct. at 2979, 86 L.Ed.2d at 648. Alaska has sufficient contacts with and interests in this adoption to ensure that application of Alaska law was not arbitrary or unfair to LJJ. The original decree was issued by an Alaska court, the adoptive child and her family live in Alaska, TNF was conceived in Alaska, LJJ consented to the adoption in an Alaska court, the consent stated that Alaska law governing withdrawal of consent prior to entry of a decree applied to this adoption, and LJJ invoked the jurisdiction of the Alaska court to set aside the decree. [20] We therefore conclude that the application of Alaska law conformed to the dictates of due process.