IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF DOWNING, 489 P.3d 9

Vandell Downing (Decedent) died April 4, 2018; he lived for decades with Maxine Bailey, who the trial court found to be his common-law wife and appointed personal representative.
Three adult children (Movants) sought an emergency restraining order to prevent Bailey from cremating Decedent, alleging he opposed cremation and had purchased a burial plot and headstone in 1966.
At the contested hearing Movants offered testimonial evidence that Decedent preferred burial and had purchased a plot; they did not admit the alleged written contract, deeds, or any pre-need funeral contract into evidence (a hearsay objection to a post-mortem inventory was sustained).
The trial court concluded (1) Bailey was the surviving widow and (2) testimony about the 1966 purchase established a written document under 21 O.S. § 1158(1), and issued an injunction compelling burial.
On appeal the Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed whether § 1158(1) was satisfied and whether injunctive relief was warranted; the Court reversed the injunction and remanded, holding Movants failed to prove the required written, executed document or pre-need contract.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence that Decedent purchased a burial plot/headstone and testified statements about preferring burial satisfy 21 O.S. § 1158(1)	Movants: testimony of purchase and Decedent's statements show a controlling written arrangement	Bailey: § 1158(1) requires an actual pre-need funeral contract or a written document executed under Oklahoma law; testimony is insufficient	Reversed: § 1158(1) requires introduction of an executed written document or pre-need contract; testimonial evidence alone is insufficient
Whether ownership of a burial plot alone establishes intent to be buried (vs. cremation)	Movants: ownership and long-standing opposition to cremation indicate burial preference	Bailey: ownership of a plot does not definitively establish a choice of interment over cremation without a qualifying writing	Held: ownership of a plot is not dispositive; statute needs an executed writing or pre-need contract
Whether injunctive relief was properly granted absent documentary proof	Movants: equitable relief justified to preserve Decedent's remains consistent with alleged wishes	Bailey: injunctive relief is extraordinary and requires clear and convincing evidence of statutory prerequisites	Held: granting injunction was an abuse of discretion because prerequisites of §§ 1151/1158(1) were not proven by clear and convincing evidence

In re Estate of Foresee, 475 P.3d 862 (Okla. 2020) (interpretation of § 1158 and distinction between decedent-nominated control and statutory priority)
Sharp v. 251st St. Landfill, Inc., 925 P.2d 546 (Okla. 1996) (standard for reviewing injunctions: abuse of discretion/clear and convincing evidence)
Thomas v. E-Z Mart Stores, Inc., 102 P.3d 133 (Okla. 2004) (legal conclusions in injunction cases reviewed de novo)
Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Okla. v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 561 P.2d 499 (Okla. 1977) (abuse of discretion standard for injunctive relief)