Burns v. Astrue
289 P.3d 551
Utah2012Background
- The Utah Supreme Court answers a certified state-law question from the district court about whether a signed Semen Storage Agreement can constitute consent to be a parent under Utah law.
- Michael Burns deposited his sperm for cryopreservation with the University of Utah, agreeing to a storage arrangement that would transfer the semen to his wife upon his death.
- Burns died in 2001; his wife used the preserved semen in 2008 to conceive LM.B., who was born that year.
- Mrs. Burns sought Social Security benefits based on Mr. Burns’s earnings, but SSA denied benefits on the ground that LM.B. was not Mr. Burns’s child under the Social Security Act.
- An administrative decision later reversed the SSA denial, and a paternity adjudication in Utah established Mr. Burns as LM.B.’s father.
- The federal district court certified the question to determine whether the Agreement, standing alone, satisfies the statutory requirement of consent to be a parent of a child conceived after death.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Semen Storage Agreement constitute consent to be a parent? | Burns argues the agreement, read as a whole, shows consent to be a parent. | SSA contends the agreement does not express consent to parenthood and is primarily a storage contract. | No; the agreement does not constitute consent to be a parent. |
| Should extrinsic evidence be considered if the agreement is ambiguous? | Burns seeks extrinsic evidence to interpret consent. | SSA argues the agreement is not ambiguous and extrinsic evidence is inappropriate. | Extrinsic evidence declined; agreement not ambiguous. |
| Is the agreement a record that satisfies the statutory consent requirement? | Burns contends the written contract shows consent in a record. | SSA argues the contract is a storage agreement with no parenthood consent. | Yes, but not as consent to be a parent; it remains a storage contract without such consent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitney v. Div. of Juvenile Justice Servs., 274 P.3d 906 (Utah 2012) (cites state-law interpretation principles)
- U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. U.S. Sports Specialty Ass'n, 270 P.3d 464 (Utah 2012) (state-law and contract interpretation context)
- Carranza v. United States, 267 P.3d 912 (Utah 2011) (principles for interpreting records under Utah law)
- Lopez v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 274 P.3d 897 (Utah 2012) (statutory interpretation and contract language)
- Warne v. Warne, 275 P.3d 238 (Utah 2012) (parentage and intestate concepts under Utah law)
- Allen v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 839 P.2d 798 (Utah 1992) (reasonable expectations doctrine considerations)