Bethel v. Franklin

• Decision Date: 24 February 2023
• Docket Number: SC-2022-0787
• Citation: Bethel v. Franklin, SC-2022-0787 (Ala. Feb 24, 2023)
• Parties: Orlando Bethel v. Brennan James Franklin, Mikki Franklin, and Hughes Funeral Home and Crematory
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Orlando Bethel v. Brennan James Franklin, Mikki Franklin, and Hughes Funeral Home and Crematory

No. SC-2022-0787

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 24, 2023

Appeal from Baldwin Circuit Court(CV-22-900287)

SELLERS, Justice.

Orlando Bethel appeals from an order of the Baldwin Circuit Court denying his motion for a preliminary injunction pursuant to Rule 65, Ala. R. Civ. P.We reverse and remand.

I.Facts and Procedural History

On February 18, 2022, Zoe Sozo Bethel("the decedent") died intestate in Florida; she was survived by her spouse Brennan James Franklin("the spouse"), and their five-year-old daughter.After the decedent's death, the spouse arranged for the body to be cremated in Florida and had the cremated remains ("the ashes") shipped to Hughes Funeral Home and Crematory ("the funeral home") in Alabama, where the spouse's mother, Mikki Franklin, was employed.Thereafter, a dispute arose between the spouse and the decedent's father, Orlando Bethel("the father"), concerning the right to control the disposition of the ashes.

On March 8, 2022, the father filed an emergency petition pursuant to § 34-13-11(b)(4),Ala. Code 1975, in the Baldwin Probate Court seeking a determination that the spouse and the decedent had been estranged at the time of the decedent's death and that the spouse had therefore forfeited his right as an "authorizing agent" to control the disposition of ashes.The father requested that he, rather than the spouse, be granted the right to control the disposition of the ashes.While the probate action was pending, the father filed in the Baldwin Circuit Court a motion for a temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for a preliminary injunction enjoining the spouse, the spouse's mother, and the funeral home ("the defendants") from further "dividing, diminishing, splitting up or otherwise disposing of" the ashes; the proceeding on the father's request for injunctive relief was assigned case no. CV-22-900248.The circuit court entered a five-day temporary restraining order enjoining the defendants from disposing of the ashes and scheduling a preliminary hearing on the matter.Thereafter, the funeral home, through its owner, Benjamin Hughes, Sr., filed a motion requesting that the funeral home be dismissed from the action; in that motion, Hughes represented, in relevant part, that he understood that the funeral home could not "take any action [with regard to the ashes] until the pending Probate Court action is completed through all of the Court's deliberation and any subsequent appeals thereto that could possibly follow."Based on that representation, the father voluntarily moved the circuit court to dismiss his motion for injunctive relief.Accordingly, the circuit court entered an order dismissing the father's request for injunctive relief filed in case no. CV-22-900248.

On March 16, 2022, the probate court entered a final order in the probate action, dismissing the father's petition filed pursuant to § 34-13-11(b)(4) as moot.The probate court opined that the purpose of § 34-13-11 is "to give direction and/or protection to a funeral home director as to who has the legal authority to determine the manner in which the remains of a deceased person may be disposed, i.e., buried or cremated."The probate court reasoned that, because the decedent's remains had been disposed of by cremation, the father's request to be awarded the right to control the disposition of the remains was moot.Accordingly, the probate court did not address the father's allegation that the spouse and the decedent had been estranged at the time of the decedent's death.

On March 23, 2022, the father appealed the probate court's order to the circuit court("the probate appeal").That appeal is presently pending in the circuit court and is not currently before us.In that same action, the father filed another motion for a preliminary injunction, the denial of which is the subject of this appeal.^[1] In support of his requested injunctive relief, the father averred, among other things, that the funeral home had possession of the ashes and that the spouse had communicated to the father his intent to "split up" or otherwise dispose of the ashes, which, the father claimed, would not only "violate the decedent's wishes and her religious beliefs," but would also constitute a desecration of her ashes.The father also alleged that Hughes, the owner of the funeral home, had informed him that the ashes had already been "split up," despite Hughes's previous representation that the funeral home could take no action regarding the ashes pending resolution of the issue regarding the right of disposition.Accordingly, the father requested that the circuit court enter a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from further "dividing, diminishing, splitting up or otherwise disposing of" the ashes.

On June 3, 2022, the circuit court held a hearing on the father's request for a preliminary injunction, at which the father proceeded pro se.Although the father elicited substantial testimony on the issue of whether the spouse and the decedent had been estranged, we do not find that testimony entirely relevant or dispositive of the issues in this appeal.Nonetheless, the undisputed testimony at the hearing indicated that the decedent and the spouse had been living apart since the end of 2020 but that they were still legally married when the decedent died in February 2022.The spouse testified that, after the decedent died, he had her body cremated and that he wanted to keep the ashes for their minor daughter.Despite having knowledge of the ongoing dispute regarding the right to control the disposition of the ashes, the spouse testified that he had directed the funeral home to divide or split the ashes; however, he could not remember the date he had done so.The spouse further stated that, on April 9, 2022, he relinquished possession of the "divided" ashes to "third parties."Notably, the spouse refused to disclose the names of those individuals, stating that he was "not at liberty to discuss [their identity] under advice of counsel."A discussion then ensued off the record, after which the circuit-court judge stated, "I'm going to order someone to file under seal to me who's got [the ashes]," to which the spouse's attorney stated, "I will be happy to file that under seal."The circuit-court judge then stated, "I know you will because I'm ordering it, and then we'll decide who gets [the ashes] at that point."Finally, near the conclusion of the hearing, the father indicated his intent to testify, to which the circuit-court judge replied, "[y]ou can certainly testify if you want to.I can tell you that I'm inclined to grant the temporary [injunction] and order all of the defendants to -- if they have possession of any of the [ashes] not to dispose of them.… And it's just going to be temporary until we get to the final hearing."Accordingly, the father did not testify.Despite the circuit-court judge's representation that he planned to order the defendants to file under the seal the names of the individuals who had possession of the ashes and despite his representation that he was "inclined" to issue the preliminary injunction pending a final hearing on the merits, the circuit court, nonetheless, entered an order denying the father's requested injunctive relief, without any stated reasons or explanation.The father filed a motion to reconsider, which the circuit court denied.This appeal followed.SeeRule 4(a)(1)(A), Ala. R. App. P.

II.Standard of Review

A party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate (1) that the party would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction, (2) that the party has no adequate remedy at law, (3) that the party has at least a reasonable chance of success on the ultimate merits of the case, and (4) that the hardship that the injunction will impose on the opposing party will not unreasonably outweigh the benefit accruing to the party seeking the injunction.Holiday Isle, LLC v. Adkins, 12 So.3d 1173, 1176(Ala.2008).Generally, "'[t]he decision to grant or to deny a preliminary injunction is within the trial court's sound discretion.In reviewing an order granting [or denying] a preliminary injunction, the Court determines whether the trial court exceeded that discretion.'"Holiday Isle, 12 So.3d at 1175-76(quotingSouthTrust Bank of Alabama, N.A. v. Webb-Stiles Co., 931 So.2d 706, 709(Ala.2005)).We review the legal rulings of the trial court, to the extent they resolve questions of law based on undisputed facts, de novo.Id. at 1176.

III.Discussion

The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the circuit court exceeded its discretion in denying the father's request for a preliminary injunction pending a final hearing on the merits of the probate appeal.

A.Reasonable Chance of Success on the Ultimate Merits

Chief among the factors to be considered in issuing a preliminary injunction is the demonstration of a reasonable probability of success on the merits.The father argues that he sufficiently demonstrated entitlement to a preliminary injunction based on the plain language of § 34-13-11(b)(4), regarding estrangement; the testimony adduced at the preliminary-injunction hearing regarding the spouse and the decedent's estrangement; and his allegation that the probate court erred in determining, as a matter of law that cremation alone constitutes "disposition" and, thus, dismissing his petition filed in that court as moot.The defendants, on the other hand, argue that the father lacked "standing" under § 34-13-11 to commence the probate-court action because, they say, that statute provides that a surviving spouse has priority status over a surviving parent to control the disposition...