Sinai Temple v. Kaplan
1976 Cal. App. LEXIS 1206, 54 Cal. App. 3d 1103, 127 Cal. Rptr. 80 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A cause of action for tortious interference with the right to dispose of a decedent's remains exists against a close relative who interferes with that right. However, to state a valid claim, a plaintiff must plead specific facts detailing both the tortious conduct and the resulting mental or physical injury.
Facts:
- Martin Kaplan died, survived by his minor daughter, Alisa, and his father, Morris Kaplan.
- Martin was divorced from Gloria Kaplan, who was Alisa's guardian and the administratrix of Martin's estate.
- Under California Health & Safety Code § 7100, the surviving child, Alisa, possessed the paramount right to control the disposition of Martin's remains.
- Without consulting Gloria or Alisa, Martin's father, Morris Kaplan, made all funeral arrangements for Martin with Sinai Temple and signed the contracts for the services.
- The funeral arrangements made by Morris were allegedly contrary to the customs, practices, and agnostic beliefs of both the deceased, Martin, and his daughter, Alisa.
Procedural Posture:
- Sinai Temple filed a complaint in a lower court against Gloria Kaplan (as administratrix of the estate) and Morris Kaplan to recover funeral expenses.
- Gloria Kaplan, on behalf of the estate and her daughter Alisa, filed a cross-complaint against Sinai Temple and Morris Kaplan for tortious interference with the right to dispose of the decedent's remains.
- The case was transferred to the superior court (trial court of general jurisdiction).
- Cross-defendants Sinai Temple and Morris Kaplan filed motions for summary judgment and for judgment on the pleadings against the cross-complaint.
- The superior court granted the motions, dismissing the cross-complaint with prejudice, and also entered judgment for Sinai Temple against the estate for the funeral costs.
- Gloria Kaplan, as cross-complainant and appellant, appealed the trial court's dismissal of the cross-complaint to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a cause of action for tortious interference with the right to dispose of a decedent's remains exist against a close relative, and if so, what must be pleaded to state a valid claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Stephens, J.
Yes, a cause of action for tortious interference with the right to dispose of a decedent's remains exists against a close relative, but the plaintiff must plead specific facts showing both the tortious conduct and the resulting injury to state a valid claim. The court recognized that the duty to bury a corpse is a legal right belonging exclusively to the next of kin, which creates a quasi-property right in the body for the limited purpose of burial. The court extended the existing tort liability for interference with this right, which had previously applied to mortuaries, to include close relatives who interfere. However, the cross-complaint against Morris Kaplan failed because it did not plead sufficient facts. The pleadings contained only legal conclusions, such as that Morris's acts were 'willful' and 'wrongful,' without specifying what the decedent's or child's beliefs were or how the burial procedure contravened them. Crucially, the cross-complaint also completely failed to allege any mental or physical injury resulting from the alleged interference, which is an essential element of the tort action.
Analysis:
This decision formally establishes that the tort of interference with the right of sepulcher (disposition of remains) can be brought against a family member, not just a commercial entity like a mortuary. It affirms that the statutory priority for controlling a decedent's remains is a legally protectable right against interference by relatives with a lower priority. However, the case also sets a high pleading standard by requiring plaintiffs to allege specific facts demonstrating both the wrongful interference and, critically, the tangible emotional or physical harm suffered. This requirement serves as a significant barrier, preventing claims based solely on conclusory allegations or generalized anger over family disputes regarding funeral arrangements.
