784 F.Supp.3d 1250
D.S.D.2025Background
- Tamera Haase sued Dindot-Klusmann Funeral Home and its co-owner, Jay M. Klusmann, over the handling of her father's (William Shumaker) funeral and burial arrangements.
- The dispute centers around whether Haase, as the biological child, or Shumaker's stepchildren had the legal right to control funeral decisions under South Dakota law, given no written instructions from the decedent.
- Haase sought partial summary judgment on several negligence-based claims stemming from her alleged exclusion from the funeral decisions in favor of her step-siblings' wishes.
- South Dakota statute SDCL § 34-26-75 establishes an order of priority for who controls a decedent’s remains, favoring biological children absent a surviving spouse or a designated person.
- Defendants argue that Haase was estranged from her father, potentially forfeiting her statutory rights under SDCL § 34-26-76(4), and assert their actions followed what they believed were the decedent's wishes.
- The Court denied Haase's motion for partial summary judgment due to disputed facts—including whether Haase was estranged—requiring jury determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of care for funeral directors under SD law | Must follow SDCL § 34-26-75 strictly | Must follow decedent’s wishes, even if unwritten | Must follow statutory order; decedent’s wishes matter but do not override statute |
| Negligence/Negligence per se for violating SDCL § 34-26-75 | Violation of statute is negligence per se | Only willful/malicious interference actionable, not mere negligence | Negligence per se not sufficient; requires intentional, willful, or malicious conduct |
| Definition of “child” under statute | Biological children alone have statutory right | Stepchildren can be included; Haase is estranged | “Child” means biological/adopted child, not stepchildren unless Haase is estranged |
| Estrangement as a bar to statutory right | Defendants waived the defense by not seeking state court order | Can raise estrangement defense even if no court action | Genuine fact issue; estrangement can be a defense, jury must decide |
Key Cases Cited
- Red Bear v. SESDAC, Inc., 896 N.W.2d 270 (S.D. 2017) (establishes that only intentional, willful, or malicious interference with right to decedent’s remains is actionable in South Dakota)
- Chisum v. Behrens, 283 N.W.2d 235 (S.D. 1979) (South Dakota law requires intentionality rather than negligence for interference with right of sepulcher)
- Bozied v. City of Brookings, 638 N.W.2d 264 (S.D. 2001) (clarifying that legal duty is a question of law for the court)
- Norwest Bank S.D., N.A. v. Venners, 440 N.W.2d 774 (S.D. 1989) (waiver requires clear, unequivocal act showing intent to relinquish a right)
- Sherman v. Winco Fireworks, Inc., 532 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 2008) (affirmative defense may be considered if raised without unfair surprise)