G en. 267] 267 HEAL TH OCCU P AT I ONS M OR T I C I ANS

) T E ST AME NT ARY L A W

) A UTHORIT Y TO D ET ERMI NE D I SP OSI T I ON OF B ODY

) P RE - NE E D F UN E RA L C ONTRACTS

Febr uar y28, 1994

M r
. E r i ch W

. M ar ch P r es i dent St at e Board of

Mor t i ci ans T he St at e B oar d o f M or t i ci ans has r eques t ed ouropi ni on on s ever al ques t i ons r el at i ng t o t he di s pos i t i on, i ncl udi ng cr emat i on, of t he r emai ns of a de cea s ed per s on. Speci fi cal ly , y o u p os ed t he foll ow i ng i ssues: 1. W ho i s t he “ne xtof ki n” forpurpos es of m aki ng funer al arran g em en ts an d fin al disp o sit ion s, inclu d ing c re m ati o n s, fo r a d e c e a se d h u m a n b o d y ? W h a t h a p p e n s in th e e v e n t o f a d isp u te among t he n ext of ki n w i t h r egar d t o fi nal di s pos i t i on? D oes t he per s on w ho pay s fort he fune r al have the author i t y to d ec i de about t he final arr ang em ents , even i f ano t her fam i l ym em ber di sagrees? I f t her e ar e no nextof ki n, w h o h as the aut hor i t yt o m ake a r r a n g e me n t s ? M u s ta p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e b e a p p o i n t e d ? 2

. W h a t au th o rityd o e s th e p e rso n a l re p re se n tativ e h a v e in m aki ng fi nal di s pos i t i on ar r angement s , i ncl udi ng cr emat i on, i f next of ki n di s agr ee w i t h t he per s onal r epr es ent at i ve’ s deci s i on? 3. M aya s el l er o f a pre - need c ont r actt hati ncl udes cr emat i on s er vi ces r efus e t o carr youtt hatcont r actbas ed upon t he obj ect i ons of t he next of ki n? M aya pr e- need c ont r actbe made for a c re m a tio n w ith a th ird p a rtya s b e n e f icia ryo f th e c o n tra c t? F or t he reasons st at ed b el ow , w e con cl ud e as foll ow s: 1. T he s ur vi vi ng s pous e has t he p ara m ountr i ghtt o m ake funer al ar r angement s for t he dece as ed. I f t her e is n o sur vi vi ng s pous e, as a gene r al r ul e, t he r i ghti s i n t he nextof ki n i n t he or der of t h eirr el at i on t o t he dec edent : adul tchi l dr en, t hen par ent s , t hen br ot hers a nd s i s t er s , t hen more di s t antki n. I f t her e ar e no nextof268 [7 9 O p . A tt ’y ki n, s om eone e l s e w i t h a s peci al r el at i ons hi p t o t he dec eas ed

)for ex am p le, a c lose frien d o r ne igh b o r )m ay co n tr act forfuner al ar r angement s , i ncl udi ng s ubs equent bur i al or cr emat i on. I f no one el s e makes ar r angement s , t he ow nero f the pr oper t yw her e t he dece as ed di ed mi ghthave t o as s um e t hatr es pons i bi l i t y . A per s onal r epr es ent at i ve nee d notbe appoi nt ed for t he sol e purpos e of m aki ng a r r a n g e m e n t s f

o rt h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f

a b o d y. In th e a b sen ce o f a statu te or reg u lation p rov iding fo r a di ffe ren t deci s i on- m aki ng m echa ni s m , a di s put e among r el at i ves w oul d be r es ol ved byt he s i m pl e fa ctof w ho cont r act s w it h t he pr ovi derof funer al s er vi ces , beca us e t hatper s on i s ent i t l ed t o m ake th e d e c is io n s a b o u t th e a rr a n g e m e n ts

. 2

. A p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , a b s e n tt e s t a m e n t a r y a u t h o r i t y, does notaut om at i cal l yr ece i ve pos s es s i on of t he corps e or t he r i ght t o deci de i t s di s pos i t i on, w het her by bur i al orcr emat i on. W heneve r th e d u tyto p ro v id e f

o r th e d isp o sitio n o f th e b o d yis p lac e d b yw ill upon t he per s onal re pr es ent at i ve, t he r epr es ent at i ve mayhave the r i ghtt o t he cus t odyof t he bodys ol el yfort hatpurpos e. M ar y l and law d o e s n o t g iv e g u id a n c e a b o u t th e p e rso n a l re p re se n tativ e ’s d u ty t o t ake i nt o acc ountobject i ons fr om next

- of- ki n. I f t he per s onal rep res ent at i ve contr act ed w i t h t he pr ovi derof fune r al s er vi ces , t he p e rso n a l re p re se n tativ e ’s d e c isio n w o u ld c o n tro l. 3. A pr e- need cont r act i s a contr act bet w een the l i cens ee a nd t he dec eas ed and maynotbe br eac hed mer el ybeca us e t he buy erof t he co ntrac t is decea sed or t he n ext of kin object s t o the ser vices

) i n c l u d i n g , i f

i tb e s o , c r e ma t i on ) p u r c h a s e d b yth e d e c e a s e d . A p artym ay en ter i n to a p re-n ee d co n tr ac t fo r t h e b e n e f it o f a thir d p a rt ya n d s e le c t c re m a tio n a s th e f o rm o f d is p o s itio n .
I St at ut or y B ac kgr ound U nder§7- 317 (a)(11) of t he H eal t h O ccupa t i ons ( “H O ”) Ar t i c l e , M a r y l a n d Cod e , a l i c e n s e e who “ r e f u s e s t o s u r r ender c u s to d yo f

a d e a d h u m a n b o d yo n th e d e m a n d o f a p e rso n w h o is ent i t l ed t o it s cu s t ody

. . . ” i s s ubj ectt o di s ci pl i ne. H O §7- 406 pr ovi des t hat“a l i cens ee s hal l m ai nt ai n a co m pl et e fi l e of a cr emat i on t hatinclu d es t he s i gnatur e of the nextof ki n, per s on i dent i fy i ng t he body , orper s on r es pons i bl e fordi s pos i t i on. . . . ” TheG en. 267] 269

We n otetha

t Se nateB ill75 0, “Fun eral Di re c tor s
) Cremation 1 De c ision s, ” woul d c lari fy thelaw re g a

rdingthedis po sit ion

of re ma ins , including by

means of c remation. M a ry lan d M o rticia n s A c t in d ica tes n e ith e r w h o is e n tit led to “cus t ody ” norw ho i s “r es pons i bl e fordi s pos i t i on. ” I n addi t i on, §5- 501 of t he H eal t h- G ener al ( “H G ”) A r t i cl e, M ar y l and C ode, pr ovi des t hat“a pe r s on m aynot cre m ate a body u nti l i t has been i den t i fi ed by

. . . a person w ho i s auth o riz e d to ar r ange f orfi nal di s pos i t i on of t he b o d y . ” H G §5- 406 not es t hat “w i t h r es pectt o an u ncl ai m ed body , anyr el at i ve orfr i end of the dece as ed maycl ai m t he body and on pay i ng t he cos t s of m ovi ng and em b alm ing the b o d y , sh all rec eive it

. ” T h ese sec ti o n s fa il to d ec lare w ho has t he r i ghtt o aut hor i ze f i nal di s pos i t i on. 1

II D ut y t o A rrange D i s posi t i on A . P r i or i t

y of P os s es s i on T her e i s a pauc i t y of aut hor i t y i n M ar y l and r egar di ng t he r i ght to co n tr o l th e d ispo sit ion o f th e re m ains o f a d ec ea sed p erso n . In U ntersi zung V erei n v. P osner, 176 M d. 332, 4 A

. 2d 743 ( 1939) , t he C o u r t o f A p p e a ls h e ld th a t th e su rv iv in g sp o u se o r th e n e x t o f k in h as a q u asi-pro p ertyri g h t i n the b o d yin the ab sen ce o f testam en tary d isp o sitio n . 1 7 6 M d

. a t 3 3 7

. T h is rig h t is n o t a p ro p e rtyrig h t w ith in t he gene r al m eani ng of t hatt er m , butexi s t s fort he purpos e of d e ter m in in g w h o is to h a v e th e c u sto d yo f th e b o d yin p r e p a r in g it f o r b u ri a l. Id

. I n D oug h erty v. Mer cant i l e Saf e D ep. & Tr us tC o. , 282 M d. 617, 387 A

. 2 d 244 ( 1978) , t he C our thel d t hatt he s ur vi vi ng s pous e has a par amount ri g h t to pos s es s i on of t he body and t o deci de t he pl ace of s epul t ur e. A l t hough t he C our tdid not det er m i ne w ho r ece i ves pos s es s i on i n t he abs ence of a s ur vi vi ng s p o u s e , i tc i t e d a p p r o v i n g l y P et t igr ew v. P et t igr ew , 207 Pa. 313, 56 A

. 878 ( 1904) , t he par adi gm cas e on t he pri or i t y of poss es s i on of a dead huma n b o d y . T he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our ts um m ar i zed th e leg a l p rin c ip les a s f o llo w s: Fir s t , t he par amount r i ghti s i n t he s ur vi vi ng h u sb an d o r w ido w , an d , if the pa rtie s a re270 [7 9 O p . A tt ’y

The spousal priority

ref erred to in the tex t m i gh t b e lost if the 2 (continued...) liv in g in th e n o rm a l re latio n s o f m a rria g e , it w i l l r e q u i r e a v e r y s t r o n g c a s e t o j u s t i f y a cour ti n i nt er fer i ng w i t h t he w i s h of t he s ur vi vor . Secondly

. I f t her e i s no s ur vi vi ng h u sb a n d o r w if

e , the rig h t is in th e n e x t o f k in i n t he or derof t hei rr el at i on t o t he dece dent , as chi l dr en of p rop erage, par ent s , br ot her s and s i s t ers, o rm or e di s t antki n, m odi fi ed, i tm ay be, by ci r cumst ance s of s peci al i nt i m ac y or as s oci at i on w i t h t he dec edent

. T hi r dl y . H ow f a r th e d e sire s o f th e d e c e d e n t sh o u ld p re v a il agai ns tt hos e of a s ur vi vi ng hu sband orw i fe i s an open ques t i on, butas agai ns tr emot er c o n n e c ti o n s , s u c h w is h e s e s p e c ia ll y if stro n g ly a n d re c e n t l yexp resse d , sh o u ld u su a llyp re v a il.

5 6 A . a t 8 8 0

. In a n u m b e r o f ju risd ictio n s, c o u rts h a v e e n d o rse d th is h ie ra rc h ic a l a p p ro a c h

. See R ho des Mut. Ins. C o. v. Moo re , 586 So. 2 d 8 8 6 (A la. 1 9 9 1 ); B r ow n v. Mat t hew s Mor t uar y, I nc. , 801 P. 2d 37 (Id a h o 1 9 9 0 ); Spar dar o v. C at hol i c C em et er i es , Inc. , 330 N

. W

. 2d 1 1 6 (M in n . 1 9 8 3 ); H

o o d v . S p ra tt , 3 5 7 S o . 2 d 1 3 5 (M is s . 1 9 7 8 ); F el i pe v. V ega , 5 7 0 A .2 d 1 0 2 8 (N .J. S u p e r C h . 1 9 8 9 ); D u m o u c h e lle v
. D u k e U

n iv ., 3 1 7 S .E . 2 d 1 0 0 (N .C . A p p . 1 9 8 4 ); S u l l i v an v. C at hol i c C em et er i es , I

nc. , 3 1 7 A .2 d 4 3 0 , 4 3 2 (R .I. 19 7 4 ); Es t es v. W oodl aw n Mem or i alP ar k, I nc. , 780 S. W

. 2d 759, 762 ( T enn. A pp. 1 9 8 9 ); W hi t ehai r v. Highl and Mem or y G ar dens , I

nc. , 327 S. E d. 2d 4 3 8 , 4 4 3 (W .V a . 1 9 8 5 ). I n o th e rs , s ta tu te s c o n tr o l th e m a tte r. See, e .g ., W e st A n n . C a l. H e a lth & S a f e ty C o d e § 7 1 0 0 ; C o n n . G e n . S tat. §45- 253; T ex. H eal t h & SafetyC ode A nn. §711. 002. M os tr ece nt l y , i n a ca s e i nvol ving an al l egedl yw r ongful d isin ter m e n t, th e C o u rt o f S p e c i al A pp ea ls n o ted th a t th e “ im m e d iate next

- of- ki n” ar e “e nt i t l ed t o pos s es s i on of t he body forpurpos es of bur i al

. . . ”

)i f t her e i s no su rvivi ng s pous e, us ual l ya s ur vi vi ng p a re n t o r c h ild

. W

al s erv. R es t haven M

em o rialG ar den , 98 M d. A p p . 3 7 1 , 3 8 6 , 6 3 3 A

. 2 d 4 6 6 (19 9 3 ). T o s um m ar i ze, t he pr i m ar yr i ghtt o pos s es s i on orcus t odyof a d e a d h u m a n b o d y is i n th e su rv iv in g sp o u se . If th e d e c e d e n t a n d h is 2G en. 267] 271

(...continued) 2 spouse had “unclea

n hands”

) that is, played an active role in the death of the dec edent. See H.Y. B erna rd, The Law of

Death and the Disposal of the Dead 12 (1966). SeePart I I C below for a

discussion of responsibility when no one 3 c o m e s f o r w ar d t o t ak e p o s s e s s i o no f

th e b o dy. I n your letter you posed the followingexample: The grandmother 4 of a te enag er whom she raised pa y s for ser vices, includingthe burial, a nd selec ts the funeral home at which the service s are to be held. Themother of the tee nag er obje cts to the use of that home but n ei th erdemands the body nor pays for a lternatearrang ements. In that situation, the mother, while havinga higher priority t o p o ssession of the body than the grandmother , waived her right to possession by not making a

demand f or po sse ssi on

of thebo dy or arrang e me nts fo r i ts i nte rm e nt. orhers pous e w er e s epar at ed ordi vo rce d at the t i m e of the dece dent ’ s death, i f t her e i s no s ur vi vi ng s pous e, ori f t he s ur vi vi ng sp o u se w a iv e s h is o r h e r rig h t to p o ss e ss io n o f th e b o d ya n d to c o n tro l th e in ter m e n t, th e n e x t o f k in , typ ica lly th e c h ild re n , w o u ld re c e iv e th e ri g h t o f

p o s s e s s io n . See 22 A m . J ur. 2d D ead Bodi es §25, at22 ( 1988)

. I f t her e ar e no next of ki n, s om eone w ho enj oy ed, t o q u o t e t h e Pe n n s y l v a n i a Su p r e me Cou r ti n P ett igr ew , “s peci al i nt i m acy or as s oci at i on w i t h the d ec ed ent ”

)a cl os e fr i end or nei ghbor , forexampl e ) m ay t ake pos s es s i on. M or eover , any 3 per s on w ho has t he r i ghtt o pos s es s i on of t he bod y m ay w ai ve t hat r i g h tb y i n a c t i o n i n r e g a r d t o t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e b o d y. 4
B . D isp u tes A m o n g N e x t o f K in Y ourl et t eri ndi cat es t hat , undert he us ual pr act i ce i n t he m or t u a r y s c i e n c e i n d u s t r y , who e v e r p a y s f o r t h e f u n e r a l h a s t he ul t i m at e aut hor i t y t o deci de about fi nal ar r angement s . H O §7- 404( a) provides t hat “[a] tt he ti m e of l i censee m akes fu neral arr ang em ents , t he l i cens ee s hall g i ve t he i ndi vi dual w ho r eques t ed t he fune r al ar r angement s a contr act

. . . . ” The per s on w ho cont r act s w i t h t he funer al di r ect ororm or t i ci an fort he s er vi ces w oul d exer ci s e t he aut hor i t yt o m ake t he deci s i ons about t he ar r angement s . W e s ee no le g a l p ro b le m w ith th e in d u s tr yp ra c tic e . I n t h e e v e n to f

a c o n f l i c ta mo n g t h e n e x to f

k i n i n t he s a me cl ass )forexampl e, t he daught erw ant s a bur i al fort he dec eas ed but t he son w ant s cr emat i on )in th e a b se n c e o f a n ylaw o n th e su b

jec t,272 [7 9 O p . A tt ’y

As discussed in Part I ID below, the individual g iving the 5 instructions should follow the wishes of the dec ease d. Under some circ umstances, a phy sicianwho follows the 6 rec ommen d at i o n of a patient car e advisory committee is aff

orded immunity for doingso. HG §5-605(b)(1)

. A s tatute would be ne cessa ry if funeral di rec tors and morti cians were to enjoy simil ar immunity

if they followed the recommendation of a dispute-re solution group. w e ca n onl yconcl ude t hat a l i cens ee w oul d be j us t i fi ed i n fol l ow i ng t he i ns t r uct i ons of w hoevercont r act s fort he par t i cul ars er vi ce. 5 M or eover , w e s ee no ba s i s for a di s t i nct i on i n t hi s r egar d conce r ni ng cr emat i on. I f t he nextof k i n w ho gi ves t he i ns t r uct i on i s t o be ous t ed fr om t hatr ol e, a cour tw oul d have t o do s o. T he B oar d of M or t i ci ans m i ghtw i s h t o cons i deres t abl i s hi ng, byr egul at i on, s om e for m of di s put e- r es ol ut i on m echa ni s m al ong t he l i nes of t he pat i entcar e advi s or ycomm i t t ees t h at h o spi t al s and n u rs in g h o m e s a re r e q u i r e d to f o rm . See H G §1 9-370

. Justas a pat i entcar e advi s or ycomm i t t ee c an hel p fami l y m em ber s r eac h acc or d aboutm edi cal t r eatm entchoi ces for an i ncapa ci t at ed r el at i ve, s o a s i m i l arent i t y m i ght hel p r es ol ve fa m i l ydi s agr eement s aboutt he d i s p o s i t i o n o f

a r e l a t i v e ’ s b o d y. 6
A s expl ai ned i n Par tI I I bel ow , a per s onal r epr es ent at i ve i s not a r efe r ee of

fami l ydi s agr eements. M or eover , a per s onal r epr es ent at i ve i s nott o be appoi n ted m ere l yi n an ef for tt o gi ve gr eat erw ei ghtt o a pot ent i all ycont r over s i al deci s i on. Y ourl et t er su g g ests, fo r ex am p le, that so m e fu n era l dir ec tors an d m o rt ici an s are appr ehens i ve of c r emat i on deci s i ons m ade bys om eone othert h an the n ex t of

k in. I n so m e s u ch situ ati o n s, m em b ers o f th e m o rtu ary sc ien c e in d u stryh a v e c o n tac ted th e ir c o u n tyR e g iste r o f W ill s in o rde r t o o p en a sm all estate to g et a lett er o f a d m inist rati o n b ef o re c re m a tin g . See §5- 602 of t he Est at es an d T rust A r t i cl e, M ar y l and C o d e . A n es t at e s houl d be opened onl y forr eas ons aut hor i zed byt he E sta tes a n d T ru s ts A rticle . It i s n o t a p ro p e r u se o f th e p ro b a te pr o c e s s t o u s e t h a tp r o c e s s me r e l yt o a t t e mptt o s h i e l d a l i c ens ee ag ainstpot ent i al l i abi l i t y . I f a ne i ghbororfr i end of the dec eas ed w ants a crem at i on , i ti s suffi ci ent for that per son to cert i fyt o the best of hi s orherknow l edge thatt he dec eas ed had no ne xtof ki n.G en. 267] 273

Some jurisdictions have provided, through statute, who has the 7 duty to dispose of a de ad human body . For example, §36-831(A) of the Public Hea lth and S afe ty Article of the Arizona Revised Statutes provides for a pri o rit

y r ank in go f

th o s e wh o h av e “ [t ]h e d

uty o f b ur yin gth e b o dy of or providing other

funeral and disposi tion arra ng ements for

a dea d p e r s o n. . . . ” T h e c o unty i nwh i c hth e d e ath o c c ur s h a s th e r e s i d u a l d uty. Se eals o Ca l. H e a lth& S afety Cod e §7 10 2; O hio Pub lic Wel fa reStat. §5101.521; N.J . Stat. §40A:9-49; 21 Okla. Stat. §11152. Maryland does not have a

simil ar statute. C . R e sid u a l D u ty “Ever y one has a r i g h t to a dece ntbur i al

. ” McK i bben v. McK i bben , 119 N

. Y

. S. 2d 685, 687 ( M un. C t

. 1952)

. “Thi s r i ght e x is tin g , c a s ts u p o n s o m e o n e th e d u ty o f s e e in g th a t it is a c c o rd e d ,” e v e n i f a p e r s o n d i e s wi t h o u t mo n e y t o p r o v i d e f o r h i s o r h e r o wn b u ri a l. I d. A tcomm on l aw , t he obl i gat i on of pr ovi di ng a dec entbur i al for t he dece d en t’ s bodyw as i m pos ed on t he per s on underw hos e r oof death t ook pl ace . I n McK i bben , the c o u rth eld th a t the d au g h ter, 7 underw hos e r oof t he fa t herw as l i vi ng att he t i m e of hi s death, w i t houta s ur vi vi ng s pous e, had an obl i gat i on of see ing thatt he f a th e r w a s d e c e n tly b u ri e d

. Id

. T he cour t found no l egal dut yon t he par tof t he br ot her , how ever , t o cont r i but e any t hi ng t o t he cos tof t he bu r i a l , be c a us e “ [t ] he c orps e di d n otdi e un de rhi s r oo f. ” 11 9 N. Y

. S. 2d at688. T he cour topi ned fur t hert hat“t her e w as n o dut yupon hi m t o bur yhi s father and i n t he abs ence of anydut y , t he cour tdoes n o t se e h o w h e c a n b e c h a rg e d w ith a n ye x p e n se b yth e p e rso n w ith w hom t he pr i m ar ydut ydoes l i e i n t hi s cas e, . . . [t he daught er ]

. ” I d. T he dut yt o pr ovi de fort he di s pos i t i on of t he bodydoes not n ec essa ri lyinclu d e the ex p en se of the bu ri al. T h ese tw o d u ti es a re s e p a ra te a n d d is tin c t. P hil l i ps v. H om e U nd ert akers , 138 P. 2d 550, 5 5 2 (O k la . 1 9 4 3 ). S e e G riffen v . C o le , 131 P. 2d 989 ( A r i z. 1942) ( s t atut e i m pos i ng dut yof bur i al u p o n var i ous per s ons cr eat es no fi nanci al l i abi l i t y , butm er el ypoi nt s outupon w h o m d ut yof bur i al devol ves )

. For exampl e, w hi l e a hus band m ay be gi ven t he dut yof p ro v id in g th e a rra n g e m e n ts f o r th e d isp o sitio n o f

h is w if e , h e r e sta te is f in a n c ia lly lia b le f

o r t h e a rr a n g e m e n ts

. Id

. I f t her e ar e no nextof274 [7 9 O p . A tt ’y

Ar ti c le8 8 A , § 6 2 Ao f

th e Co d e id e nti f

ie s c irc ums ta

n c e s un d er 8 which th e St ate w il l b e ar th e c o s t o f f un e r a l e xp e n s e s f

o r a r e c ip ie nt of be ne fi ts und e r c e rt a in p ub lic a ssi sta nc e progra

ms. Fa cto rs af

fec ting the w eight include: whether the par ties were 9 living tog et h er i n normal re lations or marria g e at the time of the dece dent’s death, the strength of the dec edent’ s expressed desire s, if the desires wer e expressed relatively close to the da

y of his death, c lose ties or spec ial intimacy

betwee n the dec edent a

nd a particular c laimant, and the re ligious belief

s of the dece d en t and the survivingspouse or ne x t of kin. TheLaw o

f D e ath at 17; 22A Am. Jur. 2d Dead Bodie s §30, at 26. k in a n d n o e sta te, h o w e v e r, th e u lti m a te f in a n c ial lia b ili tym a yf

a ll u p o n t h o s e c h a r g e d w i t h t h e d u t y. 8
D . P r ef

er ence of

the D ece as ed It is g e n e ra llyre c o g n ize d th a t a p e rso n h a s th e rig h t to d e te rm in e th e d is p o s itio n o f h is o r h e r b o d ya f

te r d e a th

. Es t es v. W oo d law n Mem
. P ark , 780 S. W

. 2d at762 ( ci t i ng F i del i t y U ni on Trus t C o. v. Hel l er , 1 6 N

. J. S u p er. 28 5 , 8 4 A

. 2 d 4 8 5 (19 5 1 )). T h ere i s , how ever , a di vi s i on among j ur i s di ct i ons as t o w het her t he w i s hes of t he dec eas ed ar e par amount t o t hatof a s ur vi vi ng s pous e ornext of ki n. Som e cour t s t ake t he posi t i on t hata pr efe r ence expr es s ed by a d e c e d e n t wi t h r e g a r d t o t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f h i s o r h e r d e ad body s h o u ld n o rm a lly b e g i v e n p re c e d e n c e o v e r o th e r i n te re s ts

. See H ol l and v. Met al i ous , 1 9 8 A .2 d 6 5 4 (N .H . 1 9 6 4 ); M a ttero f Esta te of Moyer , 577 P. 2d 108 ( U t ah 1978)

. O t herj ur i s di ct i ons i ns i s tt hat t he dec edent ’ s pr efe r ence i s s ubor di nat e t o t he w i s hes of hi s orher s u rv iv in g s p o u s e o r n e x t o f k in

. I n r e Baski n’s Appeal

f r om P ro b a te , 4 8 4 A .2 d 9 3 4 (C o n n . 1 9 8 4 ); Mexi can v. C i r cl e Bear , 370 N

. W

. 2d 737 ( S. D

. 1985)

. A t hi r d pos i t i on i s t hatt he w ei ghtt o be accorded t o the d ecede nt’ s p refer ence m ust be deter m i ned on a case bycas e bas i s , i n l i ght o f al l r el evantci r cumst ance s , and af t eran evaluat i on of all com peti ng i nter est s. 9
T he bet t ervi ew , i n ouropi nion, i s t hata per s on s houl d have t h e r i g h t t o c o n t r o l t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f h i s o rh e rb o d ya f

t e rd e a t h

. As expl ai ned i n Par tI V bel ow , a pr e- need c ont r actal l ow s fort hi s t ype o f c o n t r o l

. E v e n i n t h e a b s e n c e o f s u c h a c o n t r a c t , h o we v e r , we b e liev e th a t th e d e c e a s e d ’s w ish e s a re e n tit led to g re a t w e ig h t in det er m i ni ng t he di s pos i t i on of hi s orherbody

. T he poi ntof vi ew of t he s ur vi v ing spouse ornextof ki n s houl d notbe i gnor ed,G en. 267] 275
p a rticu lar lyin in ter p re tin g th e w ish e s o f th e d e c e a se d , b u t if th e re is cl e a re v i d e n c e o f

wha tt h e d e c e a s e d wan t e d , t h a tc o u r s e o f a c t i on s houl d be fol l ow ed. Justas s om eone maym ake a bi ndi ng pos t hum ous gi ftof or gans ort i s s ue, s o t he i ndi vi dual o u g htt o be a c c o r d e d t h e r i g h t t o d e c i d e o n t h e me t h o d o f d i s p o s i t i o n o f hi s or h e r r e m a in s . III

R ol e of t he P ers onal R epres ent at i ve A s not ed i n Par t I I A above, i t i s w el l

- s et t l ed t hat there is no p ro p e rt yri g h t a s s u c h in a b o d y . S p ie g e l v . E v e r

g r e e n C e m e te r

y C o ., 1 1 7 N .J. L a w 9 0 , 1 8 6 A . 5 8 5 (1 9 3 6 ); P et t igr ew v. P et t igr ew , 207 Pa. 3 1 3 , 5 6 A

. 8 7 8 (1 9 0 4 ); H . Y . B e rn a rd , The Law of D eath and t he D ispo s alof

t he D ead

12 (1966 ) ( ci t ed h ereaft er as “ Th e Law of D e a th ” ). “T hat a dead b od yi s not par tof the asset s of t he est ate m ayw el l be admi t t ed. ” D ou gh t e ry , 2 8 2 M d . a t 6 2 0 n .2

. See a l so Fis c h e r ’s Es t a t e v
. Fi s cher , 1 1 7 N

. E

. 2 d 8 5 5 (Il l. A p p . 1 9 5 4 ); F i del i t y U ni on Trus t C o. v. Hel l er , 16 N

. J

. Super285, 84 A

. 2d 485 (1 9 5 1 ); Mat t erof

Es t at e of

Moyer , 5 7 7 P .2 d 1 0 8 (U ta h 1 9 7 8 ). A per s onal r epr es ent at i ve, abs ent t es t ament ar yaut hor i t y , does not r e c e i v e p o s s e s s i o n o f

t h e c o rp s e . W h e n e v e r t h e d u t y t o b u r y a per s on i s pl ace d upon t he per s onal r epr es ent at i ve, t he r epr es ent at i ve has t he r i ghtt o t he cus t odyof t he bodys ol el yfort hatpurpos e. If t he per s onal r epr es ent at i ve r ece i ves s uch t es t ament ary aut hor i t y , y ou as k w het her i tm us tbe exe r ci s ed w i t h r egar d fort he w ish e s o f

th e f a m ilya n d re lativ e s. W h ile th e re is n o law in M ar y l and on t hi s s ubj ect , ot her j ur i s di ct i ons appea r t o pr ovi de t hat t he per s onal r epr es ent at i ve m us t cons i der t he w i s hes and des i r es of t he survi vi ng s pous e ort he nextof ki n. T he r at i onal e i s t hatt he bo d y is n o tan as s etof t he es t at e and the per s onal r epr es ent at i ve m igh t b e a c red it o r of the e stat e, a “s o u ll ess c o rpo rati o n , ” o r a s tr a n g e r. T

h e L a w o f D e a th at 16. A ddi t i onal l y , “s om eone ha vi ng a l es s for m al r el at i on t o t he dec eas ed s houl d be empow er ed t o deci de and ac t

. ” T

h e L a w o

f D e a th at16 n. 12. D eci di ng t he p lace or m a n n e r o f

th e f in a l re stin g p lac e o f

th e b o d yis a n in tim a te re s p o n s ib ility a n d s h o u ld b e th a t o f a re la tiv e . S ee C h ildren ’s H os pi t alv. B ur ney , 4 7 N

. E

. 4 0 1 (18 9 7 ). A n I l l i noi s appel l at e cour thas hel d t hat , i f t he exe cut orhas t he aut hor i t yt o di s pos e of the body , hi s orherpow er s onl y ext end t o t he p ay m en t of

the n ec essa ry fu n era l an d b u ri al ch arg es. T h e e x ec u tor’s276 [7 9 O p . A tt ’y d u ties d o n o t a f

f e c t th e rig h t o f

th e d e c e d e n t’s s p o u se o r n e x t o f k in t o c o n t r o l o rd e c i d e t h e a r r a n g e m e n t s o f t h e i n t e r m e n to f

t h e b o d y. F is cher ’s Es t at e v. F is cher , 117 N

. E

. 2d at 8 5 8

. T he C onnect i cut S u p re m e C o u rt like w ise h a s h e ld th a t, w h a tev e r rig h t, if a n y , tha t a p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e m a y h a v e t o d i s p o s e o f t h e d e c e d e n t ’ s b o d y, h e o r s h e m a y n o t d o s o w ith u n f e tte re d d is c re tio n . See G i vs on v. C on necti cut M

edicalE xam i ning B oa rd , 1 0 4 A

. 2 d 8 9 0 (C o n n . 1 9 54). I n t hat cas e, t he exe cut orm ade a r r angement s fort he t r ans m i s s i on of t he d ecede nt’ s bod yt o a m edical schoo l for anatom i cal pu rposes, des pi t e t he dec eas ed ’ s expr es s ed des i r es t o be bur i ed. Fur t her , he di d notcons ul tt he dec eas ed’ s nextof ki n conce r ni ng t he di s pos i t i on of t he dece as ed. 104 A

. 2d at 895. T he exe cut orw as hel d t o have no a u th o ri ty to in s is t o n th is a rr a n g e m e n t. I d.

IV P re- N eed C ont ract A . G en eral

N ature A pr e- need cont r acti s “an a gr eementbet w een a cons um erand a l i censed fun eral dir ect or, l i censed m ort i ci an, or survi ving spou se t o pr ovi de a n y g o o d s ors er vi ces pur chas ed pr i ort o t he t i m e of d e a t h

. ” H O § 7

- 1 0 1 ( p )

. A p r e - n e e d a g r e e m e n ti s u n q u e s t i o n a b l y a cont r act , t hati s , “a de l i ber at e agr eementbet w een c om pet entpar t i es u p o n le g a l co n s id e ra tio n , to d o , o r t o a b s ta in f ro m d o in g s o m e a c t.” See Mi l l erv. P alm er , 58 M d

. 4 5 1 ( 1881)

. M or eover , M ar y l and f o llo w s th e o b

je c tiv e la w o f

c o n tr a c ts

. Jenk i ns v. Kar l t on , 329 M d. 5 1 0 , 5 2 5 , 6 2 0 A .2 d 8 9 4 (1 9 9 3 ); B r uce v
. D yer , 309 M d. 4 2 1 , 4 3 9- 40, 524 A

. 2d 7 7 7 (1987). I ti s a w el l

- s et t l ed pr i nci pl e of c ont r act l aw t hat un l ess t he co ntr act i s for pers on al ser vices or byi t s express pr ovi s i ons t er m i nat es upon t he deat h of a par t yt o i t , i ts ur vi ves t he d e a th o f a p a rt y . B ur ka v. P at r i ck , 34 M d. A pp. 181, 185, 366 A

. 2d 1 0 7 0 (19 7 6 ). A pr e- need c ont r acti s bet w een t he l i cens ed funer al di r ect oror m ort i ci an an d t he deceased. I tcann ot be breached m erel ybecau se t he b uy er of t he contr act i s deceased o r because t he survi ving spou se o r n e x t o f

k in o b je c ts to th e s e rv ic e s c h o s e n b yth e d e c e a s e d

.G en. 267] 277 B . T hi r d P ar t y Pre- N eed Con tr act H O § 7 -4 0 5 (c )(i) p ro v id e s th a t a p re -n e e d c o n tra c t sh al l co n tain “[t ] he name of ea ch par t y t o t he cont r act and, i f t he benefi ci ar y i s an i nd i v i d u a l o t h e r t h a n t h e b u y e r , t h e n a me o f t h e b e n e f i c i a r y of t he c o n tra c t ..

.. ” T h e sta tu te th u s e x p re ss lyre c o g n ize s th a t th ir d p a rty pr e- need c ont r act s ar e s om et i m es ar r anged, p res um abl yw hen t he b e n e f ic ia ry o f th e c o n t r a c t i s n o t a b le to d o s o p e rs o n a lly. See 72 O pi ni ons of

t he At t or ney G ener al141, 142 n. 4 ( 1987)

. Subse ct i on (i i) r equi r es “a de s cr i pt i on of anys er vi ces and mer chandi s e t o be pr ovi ded under t he pre

- need c ont r act

. . . . ” H O §7- 101( q) ( 1) defi nes goods and s e r vi ces as “as s er vi ce, i ncl udi ng any for m of pr es er vat i on an d d ispo sit ion , tha t a m o rt ici an n o rm all yp rov ides in the o rdin ary c o u rs e o f b u s in e s s ....” (E m p h a s is a d d e d .) T he s t atut e i s cl ear : a l i cens ed fune r al di r ect ororm or t i ci an m ay ent er i nt o a pr e- need cont r act w i t h a par t y ot her t han o n e for w ho m t he servi ces w i l l be p rovi ded

. A d d iti on al l y , crem at i on i s a f o r m o f p r e s e r v a t i o n a n d d i s p o s i t i o n n o r m a l l y p r o v i d e d b y a m or t i ci an. T her efor e, an i ndi vi dual m ayent eri nt o a pr e- need cont r actfort he bene fi tof a thi r d par t yand s el ect cre m ati on as t he f o rm o f d is p o s itio n .
V

C oncl usi on

In su m m a ry , itis o u r o p in io n th a t: 1. T he s ur vi vi ng s p o u se h as t he par amount r i ghtt o m ake funer al ar r angement s for t he dece as ed. I f t her e is n o sur vi vi ng s pous e, as a gene r al r ul e, t he r i g h t is i n t he nextof ki n i n t he or der of t hei rr el at i on to t he dec edent : adul tchi l dr en, t hen par ent s , t hen br ot her s an d s i s t er s , t hen more di s t antki n. I f t her e ar e no nextof ki n, s om eone e l s e w i t h a s peci al r el at i ons hi p t o t he dec eas ed

)for ex am p le, a c lose frien d o r ne igh b o r )m ay co n tr ac t f orfuner al ar r angement s , i ncl udi ng s ubs equent bur i al or cr emat i on. I f no one el s e makes ar r angement s , t he ow nerof t he pr opert y w her e t he dece as ed di ed mi ghthave t o as s um e t hatr es pons i bi l i t y . A per s onal r epr es ent at i ve nee d not be appoi nt ed for t he s ol e purpos e of maki ng a r r a n g e m e n t s f

o rt h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f

a b o d y.278 [7 9 O p . A tt ’y In th e a b sen ce o f a statu te or reg u lat ion p rov iding fo r a di ffe r entdeci s i on- m aki ng m echa ni s m , a disp u t e among r el at i ves w oul d be r es ol ved byt he s i m p l e fa ctof w ho cont r act s w i t h t he pr ovi derof fune r al s er vi ces , beca us e t hat per s on i s ent i t l ed t o m ake th e d e c is io n s a b o u t th e a rr a n g e m e n ts

. 2

. A p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , a b s e n tt e s t a m e n t a r y a u t h o r i t y, does notaut om at i cal l yr ece i ve pos s es s i on of t he corps e ort he r i ght t o deci de i t s di s pos i t i on, w het her bybur i al orcr emat i on. W heneve r th e d u tyto p ro v id e f

o r th e d isp o sitio n o f

th e b o d y is p lac e d b yw ill upon t he per s onal r epr es ent at ive, t he r epr es ent at i ve mayhave the r i ghtt o t he cus t odyof t he bodys ol el yfor thatpurpos e. M ar y l and law d o e s n o t g iv e g u id a n c e a b o u t th e p e rso n a l re p re se n tativ e ’s d u ty t o t ake i nt o acc ountobj ect i ons fr om next

- of- ki n. If t he per s onal r epr es ent at i ve contr act ed w i t h t he pr ovi derof fune r al serv ic es , t he p e rso n a l re p re se n tativ e ’s d e c isio n w o u ld c o n tro l. 3. A pr e- need cont r act i s a contr actbetw een the l i cens ee a nd t he dec eas ed and maynotbe br eac hed mer el ybeca us e t he buy erof t he co ntr a c t is decea sed or t he n ext of kin object s t o the ser vices

) i ncl udi ng, i f i tbe s o, cr emat i on )p u rc h a s e d b y t h e d e c e a s e d . A p artym ay en ter i n to a p re -n e e d co n tr ac t fo r t h e b en ef ito f a thir d p a rt ya n d s e le c t c re m a tio n a s th e f o rm o f d is p o s itio n . J. Jo sep h C u rran , Jr. A t t or ney G ener al K im b erlyS m ith W ard A ss i s t an t A tt o rn ey G ener

al Ja c k S c h w a rtz C hi ef C ouns el O pi ni ons & Advi ce E di tor ’s N

ote: Senat e B i l l 7 5 0, r efe r r ed t o i n not e 1 above , w as enac t ed as C hapt er517 of t he Law s of M ar y l and 1994. T hi s l eg isl at i on r es ol ved manyof t he i s s ues di s cus s ed i n t hi s opi ni on.