AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 11-63-1, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO AUTHORIZE A COURT TO AWARD ATTORNEY'S FEES TO A PARTY OPPOSING RECOGNITION OR ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN LAW; TO CREATE NEW SECTION 11-63-3, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO PROHIBIT THE APPLICATION OF FOREIGN LAW IN DIVORCE AND CHILD CUSTODY CASES; TO CREATE NEW SECTION 11-63-5, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO CLARIFY EXEMPTION FROM THE LAW OF BUSINESS CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BY MISSISSIPPI BUSINESSES; TO CREATE NEW SECTION 11-63-7, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO PROHIBIT A COURT, ARBITRATOR, ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY OR OTHER ADJUDICATIVE, MEDIATION OR ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY FROM ENFORCING ANY PROVISIONS OF ANY RELIGIOUS CODE; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
Impact
If enacted, SB2129 will reinforce the sovereignty of Mississippi law in cases involving marriage and child custody by voiding any contractual agreements that designate foreign law as governing in disputes. This change emphasizes the state's commitment to ensuring that family law is determined exclusively within its legal framework, thereby preventing any outside influence that might contravene constitutional rights. Furthermore, the bill clarifies that contracts involving Mississippi businesses that choose to engage with foreign law will not be affected, ensuring that commercial dealings remain viable while still protecting personal legal rights.
Summary
Senate Bill 2129 aims to amend the Mississippi Code by prohibiting the application of foreign law in divorce and child custody cases, effectively asserting the state's authority over family law matters. It specifically targets contracts that might attempt to enforce foreign laws that could violate fundamental rights protected under the U.S. Constitution and the Mississippi Constitution. Additionally, the bill allows courts to award attorney's fees to parties that successfully oppose the enforcement of such foreign laws, creating a financial incentive for litigants to challenge these provisions in court.
Contention
Points of contention surrounding SB2129 include concerns that it may limit individuals' rights to choose their legal arrangements or protections that might be offered under foreign laws, particularly in diverse family situations. Critics of the bill argue that this could lead to unintended consequences where individuals, especially those with international ties or marriages, might find themselves disadvantaged in legal disputes. Furthermore, the prohibition against enforcing any religious codes raises questions about the implications for those entering into religious marriages or custody arrangements that could be governed by such codes.