In such a case, the law of the forum will prevail.

Law of the forum, and if that leads to no maintenance:

The court held that a federal court sitting in diversity should apply the laws of the forum state.

The Convention does not prescribe a standard, so we almost necessarily must refer to the internal law of the forum state.

The law applicable to the maintenance proceedings is not automatically that of the chosen court (law of the forum).

Answer: no, because Massachusetts courts have already held the burden of proof to be merely procedural, and those are decided by the law of the forum.

Alternatively, the court seized of the matter might apply the lex fori (the municipal law of the forum state).

The laws applied by a particular system of courts or legal system are termed the lex fori, or law of the forum.

This decision overturned precedents that had held that federal courts could create a general federal common law, instead of applying the law of the forum state.

Lex Fori refers to the law of the forum, which means the law that the Court naturally applies (e.g. Greek court would apply Greek law)

Courts may look for a provision in the law of the choice of law state that permits the court to use the lex fori, i.e. law of the forum state.

On a strict reading, this leaves untouched those cases in which the procedural law of the forum recognises some action within the jurisdiction as legally sufficient to constitute service on a defendant who is actually resident abroad.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), permits states to ignore the doctrine of lex loci celebrationis and apply only the laws of the forum state when deciding whether a marriage is valid.

The Commission ultimately recommended 'that the procedural and substantive law of the forum state should govern in establishment and modification proceedings,' citing the 'ease and efficiency of application of local law by decision-makers' as an important consideration.

Article 7(2) of the 1980 Convention stated that 'Nothing in this Convention shall restrict the application of the rules of the law of the forum in a situation where they are mandatory irrespective of the law otherwise applicable to the contract'.

It appeared to the Commission that, aside from certain cases involving fantasy or malice, a request for service forwarded abroad met a precise need, and it could be presumed that such a request was in compliance with the procedural law of the forum, since this step would otherwise make no sense.

However, Boys v Chaplin stated that it only had to be "civilly actionable" under the law of the forum; where the lex fori had a much closer connection with the dispute, the lex loci delicti limb of the "double actionability" rule could be disapplied.

Mandelbaum today is best remembered as the trial judge in the case of Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, in which the Supreme Court overruled its venable precedent of Swift v. Tyson and held that federal courts must apply the state law of the forum state in diversity cases.

This is similar to interest analysis, in that the interests of the state are taken into account - however, this test does not look to see which state benefits more from the application of its laws, but rather for situations in which the other state's interests will actually be harmed by the application of the laws of the forum state.