Hecht v. Superior Court case
brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
20 Cal.Rptr.2d 275
CASE SYNOPSIS: Petitioner, girlfriend
of decedent, sought a peremptory writ of mandamus to vacate the
decision of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California),
that ordered the personal representative of decedent's estate to
destroy all of decedent's sperm in the custody and control of a sperm
bank at the request of the real parties in interest, decedent's
personal representative and adult children.
FACTS: Petitioner, decedent's girlfriend, sought review after the lower court entered an order requiring that decedent's sperm be destroyed. The court reversed the order finding that it had been entered prematurely because the validity of decedent's will and his contract with the sperm bank, both of which contained instructions that petitioner was entitled to the sperm and that she could become impregnated with it if she so chose, had not been determined. The real parties in interest, decedent's personal representative and adult children, argued that Cal. Health & Safety Code § 7054.4, which addressed destruction of human tissue, required that the sperm be destroyed.
ANALYSIS:
The court found that § 7054.4 was not intended to address issues relating to sperm. The court concluded that at the time of his death, decedent had an interest in his sperm, because he had decision making authority regarding it, and that this interest was sufficient to constitute property within the meaning of Cal. Prob. Code § 62, and as such, the probate court had jurisdiction over the vials of sperm. The court found that artificial insemination with the sperm of a decedent did not violate public policy.
CONCLUSION: The court granted the peremptory writ of mandate and directed the lower court to vacate its order requiring that decedent's sperm be destroyed, enter an order denying the request to destroy the sperm, and conduct further proceedings finding that it was an abuse of discretion to order the sperm destroyed without first addressing the validity of decedent's will and his contract with the sperm bank, both of which contained disposition instructions.
FACTS: Petitioner, decedent's girlfriend, sought review after the lower court entered an order requiring that decedent's sperm be destroyed. The court reversed the order finding that it had been entered prematurely because the validity of decedent's will and his contract with the sperm bank, both of which contained instructions that petitioner was entitled to the sperm and that she could become impregnated with it if she so chose, had not been determined. The real parties in interest, decedent's personal representative and adult children, argued that Cal. Health & Safety Code § 7054.4, which addressed destruction of human tissue, required that the sperm be destroyed.
ANALYSIS:
The court found that § 7054.4 was not intended to address issues relating to sperm. The court concluded that at the time of his death, decedent had an interest in his sperm, because he had decision making authority regarding it, and that this interest was sufficient to constitute property within the meaning of Cal. Prob. Code § 62, and as such, the probate court had jurisdiction over the vials of sperm. The court found that artificial insemination with the sperm of a decedent did not violate public policy.
CONCLUSION: The court granted the peremptory writ of mandate and directed the lower court to vacate its order requiring that decedent's sperm be destroyed, enter an order denying the request to destroy the sperm, and conduct further proceedings finding that it was an abuse of discretion to order the sperm destroyed without first addressing the validity of decedent's will and his contract with the sperm bank, both of which contained disposition instructions.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment