Lee Augustus McGriggs, Sr. v. Mac Arthur McGriggs
192 So. 3d 350
Miss. Ct. App.2015Background
- Decedent Alfred McGriggs died Jan. 22, 2014; he was buried Jan. 25 on family-owned land in Claiborne County where several siblings and friends maintained he wished to be interred there.
- Lee Augustus McGriggs (a sibling), proceeding pro se, filed a chancery petition to exhume Alfred’s body alleging the burial violated Mississippi cemetery law and seeking protection of heirs’ property rights.
- Trial testimony: five siblings who were close to Alfred testified (uncontradicted) that Alfred wanted burial on the family property; Lee presented no sworn affidavit or live testimony proving a surviving spouse’s contrary wish or consent of other heirs.
- Chancellor denied Lee’s petition, finding no statutory violation (Miss. Code § 41-43-1(2) does not prohibit private burials) and no basis for exhumation; Lee appealed.
- Majority affirmed: applied Hood v. Spratt factors (wishes of decedent, kinship proximity, presumption against removal) and found uncontradicted evidence of decedent’s wishes and lack of close connection between movant and decedent.
- Dissent (Carlton, J.) would remand for the chancellor to expressly apply Hood factors and consider heirs’ property interests and alleged lack of consent from other heirs before burial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lee) | Defendant's Argument (Mac/Lenora et al.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of burial on private land under Miss. Code § 41-43-1(2) | Burial on private property violated statute absent board-of-supervisors approval | § 41-43-1(2) authorizes boards to establish/designate family cemeteries but does not prohibit private burials without board approval | Court: statute does not forbid burial on private property; no statutory violation |
| Whether exhumation/disinterment should be ordered (equitable relief) | Movant sought exhumation to protect heirs’ property rights and correct improper burial without consultation | Decedent’s strongly expressed wishes and testimony of close kin oppose disinterment; movant offered no competent evidence of contrary wishes | Court: deny exhumation—Hood factors favor burial at site (decedent’s wishes, close kin support, presumption against removal) |
| Competency of unsworn/notarized letters and absent witnesses | Letters from alleged widow/children support removal | Letters were notarized but unsworn; authors did not testify and letters were not entered into evidence | Court: such letters are not competent affidavits and carry no weight |
| Need for remand to apply Hood factors | Lee argues chancellor erred/failed to protect heirs’ property rights and should apply Hood | Majority: parties focused on statutory issue, record contains no evidence to justify exhumation so no further proceedings necessary | Court (majority): no remand; record insufficient to disturb burial. Dissent would remand for Hood analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Hood v. Spratt, 357 So.2d 135 (Miss. 1978) (sets equitable factors for permitting disinterment; presumption against removal, primacy of spouse/next-of-kin, and weight to decedent’s expressed wishes)
- Spiers v. In re Spiers, 992 So.2d 1125 (Miss. 2008) (applies Hood factors and permits disinterment where compelling reasons exist)
- Welford v. Dickerson, 524 So.2d 331 (Miss. 1988) (burying a body on land without owner’s permission can impugn title; parties should take precautions before burial on another’s land)
- Grisham v. Hinton, 490 So.2d 1201 (Miss. 1986) (discusses property-rights considerations when human remains are interred on land claimed by another)
- Davis v. True, 963 So.2d 1271 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (acknowledges Hood factors govern disinterment determinations)