Voidable transactions: remedies: choice of law.

Assembly Member Essayli's proposal to modify California's Uniform Voidable Transactions Act expands the legal definition of an individual debtor's location to include both principal residence and domicile, updating current law that relies solely on principal residence to determine jurisdiction in voidable transaction cases.

The amendment maintains existing provisions for organizational debtors while introducing this expanded criteria specifically for individuals. Under the modified framework, courts and parties would consider either an individual's principal residence or domicile when determining which local laws govern claims related to potentially voidable transfers or obligations. For organizations, location continues to be defined by their place of business or chief executive office if multiple locations exist.

This definitional change affects how courts determine applicable jurisdiction in cases where creditors challenge transfers or obligations as potentially voidable. The distinction between residence and domicile becomes particularly relevant in situations where an individual maintains a principal residence in one jurisdiction while maintaining legal domicile in another.