576 S.W.3d 301
Mo. Ct. App.2019Background
- Alma J. Carruthers (mother) purchased a $1,795 pre-need funeral insurance policy through Serenity for her son (Decedent) while he was gravely ill.
- After Decedent’s death, Carruthers told Serenity she wanted cremation and a visitation paid from the policy proceeds.
- Decedent’s adult son, Secoy Webb, arrived, asserted statutory right of sepulcher, and signed a “Statement of Funeral Goods and Services Selected” contracting with Serenity to cremate Decedent and hold a visitation for $1,795.
- Serenity performed the cremation and visitation and accepted the insurance proceeds; Webb signed the contract and Serenity delivered the cremated remains to Webb.
- Carruthers sued in small claims seeking return of the $1,795, arguing she contracted/payed for the cremation and was entitled to the remains; the circuit court ruled for Carruthers and awarded a refund.
- Serenity appealed, arguing (1) Webb was the contracting party and (2) statutory law authorized delivery to the person who contracted for cremation; the Court of Appeals reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Carruthers' Argument | Serenity's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carruthers was the person who contracted for the cremation under §194.350 | Carruthers argued she paid and arranged the cremation and thus contracted with Serenity | Serenity argued Webb signed the cremation contract and therefore contracted with Serenity | Held: Webb contracted with Serenity—contract elements (offer, acceptance, consideration) satisfied by the signed Statement of Funeral Goods and Services; Carruthers was not party to that contract |
| Whether delivery to Webb was authorized despite Carruthers providing the funds; effect of next-of-kin status under §194.119 | Carruthers contended Webb was not entitled to remains because he did not personally pay the costs | Serenity argued §194.119 gives a surviving child priority if willing to assume responsibility; delivery to the contracting person is authorized by §194.350 | Held: Webb’s status as next-of-kin and his willingness to assume financial responsibility satisfied §194.119.2; §194.350 authorizes delivery to the person who contracted for cremation regardless of who ultimately furnished the payment, so delivery to Webb was lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of review in judge-tried cases)
- Walker v. Rogers, 182 S.W.3d 761 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (contract formation requires offer, acceptance, consideration)
- In re Fritz, 243 S.W.3d 484 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007) (appellate briefing requirements and forfeiture for noncompliance)
- Brown v. Ameristar Casino Kan. City, Inc., 211 S.W.3d 145 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) (appellate briefing obligations)
- Scott v. King, 510 S.W.3d 887 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) (discretion to review noncompliant briefs ex gratia when argument is understandable)