Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

January 2009

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Blog powered by TypePad

Probate

Monday, June 09, 2008

UofL LAW: "Anna Nicole Smith and the Right to Control Disposition of the Dead" by Prof. Jones

"Anna Nicole Smith and the Right to Control Disposition of the Dead" Free Download

Louisville Bar Briefs, Vol. 7, No. 5, May 2007
University of Louisville School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 2008-19 

JAMES T.R. JONES, Louis D. Brandeis School of Law

The death of Anna Nicole Smith has highlighted an ancient legal issue -- who decides the place and method of disposal of the bodies of the dead. From antiquity, the law was ordinarily careful to honor the written or oral directions of the deceased. If a decedent did not express a preference, then burial was determined by the surviving spouse, and if there were none by the next of kin. In the Smith case, a dispute arose between her mother and the guardian of her infant daughter over where she would be buried. A Florida court ultimately effectively ignored their arguments and chose the place where Smith clearly orally had said she wanted to be buried. The abstracted article concluded that Kentucky would reach a like result, as there the express wishes of the decedent, testamentary or otherwise, control disposition of a body. Attorneys should encourage their clients to state, preferably in writing but at least orally, their choice for burial arrangements.

Saturday, July 28, 2007

ATTORNEYS FEES: Attorneys fees in common fund recovery for estate limited to the amount of the recovery (Cummings v. Covey, COA, 7/6/2007)

In applying the "common fund" doctrine found in KRS 412.070(1),  the Court of Appeals in Cummings v. Covey limited the attorney fees to the funds recovered for the benefit of the estate.  See, ATTORNEYS FEES FOR COLLECTION ON COMMON FUND: CUMMINGS V. COVEY (COA 7/6/2007)

KRS 412.070(1)sets forth specific situations in which attorney fees may be awarded in suits “for the settlement of estates,” and only “out of the funds recovered.” It does not in any way authorize the award of a separate fee against a wrongdoer, beyond the amount of the recovery. COA concluded it had no latitude to decide, even if it might seem equitable, to do what the statute does not permit.  The judgment of the Clinton Circuit Court is affirmed.

CUMMINGS V. COVEY
CIVIL:  ATTORNEYS FEES

2005-CA-001584
PUBLISHED: AFFIRMING
PANEL:  HOWARD, PRESIDING; WINE, BUCKINGHAM CONCUR
COUNTY: CLINTON
DATE RENDERED: 7/6/2007