OUTCOME: Ruling in favor of Marsh and Tri State Crematory
The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of claim against Brent Marsh and Tri-State Crematory regarding claims made against Brent Marsh and Tri-State Crematory for reimbursement of costs and to the inve...stigation by Walker County Georgia regarding the discovery of 300 and remained bodies on the Tri-State Crematory property. The court upheld dismissals under the free public service doctrine and other legal principles regarding the ability of the county to recover from an individual for the cost of investigating a crime.
Appeals
Akers v. Tri State
Nov 07, 2008
OUTCOME: Ruling for Tri-State on Fifth Amendment issues
This appeal involves the constitutional question as to the defendants ability to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. During hearings on the issue the trial court ruled the ...defendant could not assert the Fifth Amendment privilege as to any question in a deposition thereby giving a blanket waiver of the Fifth Amendment against the defendants, and in favor of the plaintiff who was inquiring, and a civil case, about issues that surrounded the companion case was prosecuted in the state of Georgia and the Georgia criminal justice system.
Appeals
Akers Versus Prime Succession & Brent Marsh
Jun 01, 2008
OUTCOME: Court Of Appeals upheld the dismissal of Brent Mar
This case involves multiple parties were in the parties were non-next of kin who are trying to recover damages for the failure to cremate their loved ones bodies. The cases were consolidated on appeal,... and heard by the court of appeals of Tennessee. The defendant's Prime Succession and Brent Marsh asserted that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue and could not, consequently, bring a claim under the theories espoused in the plaintiff's complaint. The Court of Appeals agreed with the defendants, dismissing some, but not all of the cases based upon plaintiffs having no standing to sue because they were not next of kin and did not have a right to bring a claim against Prime Succession and Brent Marsh regarding the failure to properly cremate bodies.
Litigation
IN RE: TRI-STATE MDL CREMATORY LITIGATION DOCKET NO. 1467
Aug 30, 2005
OUTCOME: Case settled.
This is a case resulting from the Tri-State Crematory litigation pending in Georgia, Tennessee, and Alabama. The case arises from the discovery of 300 uncommitted bodies at Tri-State Crematory where th...e case was ultimately certified as a class action by Judge Harold Murphy. After to attempt to settle and two trials, the case finally settled between all of the funeral home defendants and the plaintiffs.
Litigation
Walker County v. Marsh et al
N/A
OUTCOME: Court of Appeals dismissed claim against Marsh
Marsh was sued along with Tri State Crematory to recover Walker County's expenses regarding an investigation into the discovery of uncremated bodies on the Marsh property. Marsh and other defendants wo...n a Motion for Summary Judgment in the trial court. The Summary Judgment order stated the county could not recover it costs in investigating the incidents at Tri State Crematory because such costs were associated with a criminal investigation. The trial court ruled the county could not recover under the Free Public Services Doctrine. The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.
The Court of Appeals decision WALKER COUNTY v. TRI-STATE CREMATORY et al. A06A2249. COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA 284 Ga. App. 34; 643 S.E.2d 324; 2007 Ga. App. LEXIS 249; 2007
Litigation
Floyd v. Prime Succession
N/A
OUTCOME: Right of Fifth Amendment Privilege upheld
This lawsuit was filed by the husband and children of Gail Lavan Floyd, who died in March 2000.
T. Ray Brent Marsh ("Marsh") and the company managed by him, Tri-State Crematory, Inc. ("TriState"),
ar...e the only remaining defendants. The instant case is one ofmany civil actions filed against
Marsh and Tri-State following the discovery of over 300 bodies on the company's premises. The
bodies were to have been cremated, but were not. Criminal charges were brought against Marsh in
Georgia and Tennessee. He pleaded guilty to many ofthe charges. Following Marsh's sentencing,
he was noticed, for the second time, to give a deposition in the instant action. At an earlier
deposition, he had invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination. As to the
present notice, the trial court concluded that Marsh could no longer invoke his Fifth Amendment
privilege because, in the court's judgment, he is no longer facing criminal prosecution. The court
ordered Marsh to give a second deposition and further ordered that he could not refuse to answer any
question posed to him at the deposition ifhis refusal was predicated upon the Fifth Amendment. We
granted Marsh's Tenn. R. App. P. 9 application for an interlocutory appeal. We affirm in part and
vacate in part.
The Court of Appeals ruled that Marsh could assert his Fifth Amendment privilege subject to the trial court's review of the circumstances surrounding the assertion of the Fifth.
Litigation
Crawford and Akers v. Marsh
N/A
OUTCOME: Claims against Marsh dismissed.
Exceprts from the Court of Appeals ruling in Tennessee on whether the plaintiff's had standing to sue Brent Marsh for failing to cremate bodies:
“It is important to emphasize the precise issue on ...appeal. The issue before us is whether the Trial Court correctly determined that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the breach of contract and TCPA claims. The issue is not whether the plaintiffs could survive a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02 motion to dismiss or a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56 motion for summary judgment challenging the merits of those particular claims. The issue is as simple as this: does a person who enters into a contract agreement with a funeral home for funeral services and to have the body cremated have standing to bring a breach of contract claim based upon an alleged breach of that contractual obligation? The answer is yes. The same result holds true for the TCPA claims which are predicated upon alleged deceptive acts committed upon the family members when signing the documents with the Funeral Home.
We hold that the plaintiffs who actually signed either or both the general contract for funeral services or the cremation and disposition authorization have standing to bring breach of contract and TCPA claims based upon claimed breaches of those documents and/or alleged deceptive acts connected with the signing of those documents. We express absolutely no opinion on the merits of those claims.â€
“... we conclude that, in Tennessee, any tort claims for negligent, reckless or intentional interference with a dead body and the like can be brought only by the person or persons who have the right to control disposition of the body. Pursuant to Hill, it is the surviving spouse who has the superior right to control disposition of the body. Therefore, in the present case, the trial court correctly held that because wife had to control disposition of the decedent's body, she alone had the right to bring the various tort claims against the funeral home and Tri-State. These claims were properly dismissed for lack of standing."
"…there are two final points worth emphasizing. First, section 868, by definition, only applies to cases involving conduct committed upon dead bodies. It necessarily follows that any limitation imposed by section 868 does not apply to tortuous conduct committed upon live persons, such as that addressed by our Supreme Court in Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Nashville, 154 S.W.3d 22 (Tenn. 2005) . Second, we are not holding that someone who does not have control over disposition of the decedent's body never can bring a tort claim for emotional distress and the like. For example, if the body was mutilated in the presence of a family member, then our holding in this case would not prevent that family member from filing a lawsuit, even if that family member did not have control over the body's disposition."
The case is currently on a Rule 11 Application for Appeal with the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Litigation
JOE C. ODEN, JR., et al., TAYLOR FUNERAL HOME OF CHATTANOOGA, INCORPORATED
N/A
OUTCOME: Class action decertified
This was one of two class-action cases arising from the Tri-State Crematory litigation in Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama. The court certified a class-action arising from the discovery of 300 uncremate...d bodies at Tri-State Crematory in Noble Georgia. The plaintiff class had also sought certification in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and was also granted class certification in that jurisdiction. Ultimately, the trial court on its own motion decertified the Tennessee class-action because a national class-action was already underway in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and that class-action was considered a national class. Moreover, the plaintiff class in the Tennessee class-action did not substitute a class representative, as the class representative inTennessee had opted in to the class-action in United States district Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
