Anna Nicole Smith and the Right to Control Disposition of the Dead James T. R. Jones he recent media cir- the equity court considered the particular minor. Thus, a grandmother’s decision on cus surrounding the circumstances, and might let the sentiments burial prevailed over the wishes of a minor Tdeath of “celebrity” of a surviving spouse trump the dead spouse’s brother of the deceased, and three brothers Vickie Lynn Marshall, request; this was far less likely in the event selected the funeral spot of the parent of two a/k/a Vickie Lynn Smith, of the wishes of remoter relations such as minor children. a/k/a Vickie Lynn Ho- children, parents or siblings. The desires of gan, a/k/a Anna Nicole the dead may be preserved in writing in a will Who Decides? Smith, has brought into or other testamentary document, or even Turning to the case at hand, In re Marshall, public scrutiny an ancient legal issue—who merely expressed orally. If a decedent did not No. 07-00824 (61) (Fla. Broward Co. Cir. decides the place and method of disposal of express a preference for the place and man- Ct. Feb. 22, 2007), aff’d sub nom. Arthur v. the bodies of the dead. That very fundamen- ner of burial, then that was determined by the Milstein, 2007 WL 602630 (Fla. Dist. Ct. tal question has been addressed many times, surviving spouse, and if there is no surviving App. Feb. 28, 2007), Anna Nicole Smith none more clearly than by the preeminent spouse, then by the next of kin in the order was survived, for all essential purposes, by book in the field, by Percival E. Jackson, The of adult children, parents, siblings or more no spouse (she never legally married her Law of Cadavers and of Burial and Burial distant kin. This principle might be altered attorney/lover, Howard K. Stern); one five- Places 41-55 (2d ed. 1950). According to to take into consideration circumstances of month-old infant minor child, Dannielynn that lengthy tome, the ancient Greeks and special intimacy or association with the dead Hope Marshall Stern; and her long-estranged Romans, and those who followed them in relation. See also Hugh Y. Bernard, The Law mother, Virgie Arthur. Three days after the the Christian era, were ordinarily careful to of Death and Disposal of the Dead 19-21 (2d September 7, 2006 birth of Dannielynn in honor the express directions of the deceased ed. 1979) (short summary of law regarding Nassau, Bahamas, Ms. Smith’s 21-year-old regarding the final disposition of his or her burial of dead bodies). If the person entitled son, Daniel Wayne Smith, with whom Ms. body, including the right to demand crema- to determine the right of burial is a minor, Smith was particularly close, had died in tion, should that be the decedent’s clearly then the decision ordinarily was left to the Ms. Smith’s Nassau hospital room of a drug expressed desire. In each case, however, adult next of kin to the decedent from the overdose and ultimately was buried in the Let’s Do Lunch! Whether you do business on Wall Street or work out of your home...The unduplicated professionals from Duplicator Sales and Service backed by systems from Savin and Ricoh will solve any document management needs! Welcome... Business owners, Administrators and IT Professionals...you are invited to attend any of our Free Thursday business luncheon seminars and experience demonstrations on electronic filing in our new training facilities. We will show you the advantages of network scanning, instant document retrieval, and document management We offer scheduled seminars in our Louisville, Elizabethtown and Lexington Sales offices. For additional information Duplicator Sales & Service at 831 East Broadway Call 589 - 5555 24 www. loubar.org LOUISVILLE BAR BRIEFS Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=996496 Bahamas. Ms. Smith, herself, died on Febru- The Wishes of the Deceased v. Wallace where the guardian of minor ary 8, 2007 of a drug overdose while visiting On appeal to the Florida Fourth District children took priority over an adult parent Broward County, Fla., as a declared resident Court of Appeal, Ms. Arthur argued on of the deceased, but such a result would be of the Bahamas. Ms. Smith left no written several grounds that she was entitled to deter- consistent with the general law of burial instructions regarding disposal of her last mine the disposition of Ms. Smith’s remains. rights, which Kentucky follows. As the Smith remains, either in her will or elsewhere. However, the court denied her claim on the case indicates, it is important that attorneys sole basis that Ms. Smith clearly had orally encourage their clients to state, either in their Minor or Mother? expressed her intention that she be buried in wills or other written documents, their choice Ms. Arthur alleged she was Ms. Smith’s next the Bahamas next to her son Daniel, and that for burial arrangements (the author of this of kin, and sought possession of Ms. Smith’s doing so was consistent with the holdings in article and his wife both have left written remains to bury her in her native state of Kirksey, Cohen and Leadingham. See also instructions regarding the final disposition Texas (Ms. Arthur also indicated she wanted Kasmer v. Guardianship of Limner, 697 So. of their bodies and have orally discussed the to have Daniel Wayne Smith exhumed and 2d 220 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997) (requiring matter with one another). Lacking that, they shipped to Texas for interment). Ms. Arthur personal representative to cremate decedent at least orally should indicate their desires on alternatively testified in the Broward County pursuant to express provision in decedent’s that subject to their next of kin. proceeding that Ms. Smith had told her she will). Clear and convincing evidence of Ms. For more on the common law right of sep- wanted to be buried in Texas and in Califor- Smith’s wishes convinced the court, which ulcher, which protects the right of the buried nia next to actress Marilyn Monroe (whom never addressed the relative rights of Ms. dead to be left undisturbed, and the issue of Ms. Smith idolized and sought in her lifetime Arthur and Dannielynn as next of kin to Ms. property rights to dead bodies, see James T. to emulate), but acknowledged she had had Smith to determine the burial site. Arthur, R. Jones, Evidentiary Autopsies, 61 U. Colo. little contact with Ms. Smith during the last 2007 WL 602630, at *2-*3. This decision L. Rev. 567, 570-77 (1990), reprinted in 40 ten years of her life. There was other testi- was consistent with rulings in other states. Def. L.J. 251, 254-63 (1991). mony, and the court so found, that Ms. Smith See Jackson, supra, at 47-48; B. C. Ricketts, intentionally chose to bury her son, Daniel, Annotation, Validity and Effect of Testamen- James T. R. Jones is a Professor of Law at the in the Bahamas, that she wished to be buried tary Direction as to Disposition of Testator’s University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law, next to him, and that she had purchased four Body, 7 A.L.R.3d 747 §1[b] (1966). where he teaches courses in decedents’ estates and burial plots in the Bahamas with the specific trusts, torts, and written appellate advocacy. He intention of being buried in the one next to Kentucky Courts has been on the faculty there since 1986. n Daniel. The court ruled that since Ms. Smith How would a Kentucky court decide a case had left no written instructions as to her like In re Smith? Disregarding the case’s choice of burial spot the decision as to her sensational aspects, it would reach a result place of interment was, pursuant to Florida like that in Florida based on Kentucky’s case law, up to her next of kin, Dannielynn, respect for the common law of burial rights as represented by her guardian ad litem. See discussed above. Several Kentucky cases Kirksey v. Jernigan, 45 So. 2d 188, 189 (Fla. have observed that the express wishes of the 1959) (“It is well settled that, in the absence decedent, whether testamentary or other- of testamentary disposition to the contrary, a wise, control disposition of a dead body for surviving spouse or next of kin has the right burial purposes. E.g., Haney v. Stamper, 125 to the possession of the body of a deceased S.W.2d 761, 762 (Ky. 1939); Streipe v. Liberty for the purpose of burial, sepulcher or other Mut. Ins. Co., 47 S.W.2d 1004, 1005 (Ky. lawful disposition which they may see fit.”). 1932); Neighbors v. Neighbors, 65 S.W. 607, But cf. Cohen v. Guardianship of Cohen, 608 (1901). Many Kentucky cases have cited 896 So. 2d 950, 954-55 (Fla. Dist. Ct. to the seminal decision of Larson v. Chase, App. 2005) (court disregarded instructions 50 N.W. 238 (Minn. 1891), which held that in decedent’s will directing that he be buried burial rights are held by the surviving spouse, in Jewish cemetery in New York and instead followed by the next of kin, “in the absence ordered burial in Florida cemetery next to his of any testamentary disposition.” Id. at 239 wife of 40 years pursuant to his frequently (emphasis added). Since Anna Nicole Smith expressed oral wishes after execution of his clearly had orally expressed her wish that will that he be interred there). The court, she be buried in the Bahamas beside her in particular, cited a Florida precedent, son Daniel, her yearning would trump the Leadingham v.