Mar 10 2010
In one of the more unusual cases to confront the Colorado courts, the El Paso County Probate Court in Colorado Springs has granted Holme Roberts & Owen (HRO) client Alcor Life Extension Foundation of Scottsdale, Arizona, custody of the remains of Colorado Springs nurse Mary Robbins. The ruling upheld Ms. Robbins’s 2006 agreement with Alcor to have her head cryonically preserved after death, hoping that future technologies could bring her back to life.
“It's not unusual for there to be disputes, because what Alcor does is novel to so many people”
Colorado Springs HRO Litigation Partner Eric Bentley was joined by Denver Special Counsel Norv Brasch of the firm’s Private Client Services Group. “It's not unusual for there to be disputes, because what Alcor does is novel to so many people,” Bentley said, “and there's always a chance that relatives will have strong feelings about these matters when they learn that a relative has expressed this wish for the disposition of their remains.” From a legal perspective, Brasch notes that the Court’s ruling addressed and resolved several novel issues in the Colorado Probate Code. “The Alcor case stands for the principle that an individual’s end-of-life directives will prevail over the preferences – even the objections – of surviving family members.”
The March 1 ruling followed a full-day emergency hearing on February 26 before El Paso County Probate Court Magistrate Barbara Hughes, who delivered an unmitigated victory to Alcor in a forceful, six-page opinion. Ms. Robbins’s family and friends claimed that, two days before her death on February 9, she had revoked her wish to be cryonically preserved and diverted the annuity funds designated for her preservation to her daughters. The case hinged on whether Mary's long-standing desire to be held in cryosuspension would be honored in the face of this claim.
With no other witnesses to the alleged revocation, the HRO team was forced to rely on cross-examination and on the testimony of Alcor representatives and the decedent’s estate planning attorney, all of whom testified that Ms. Robbins had been deeply committed to her cryopreservation after death. The Court ultimately excluded much of the opposing testimony under Colorado's “Dead Man's Statute,” which bars interested parties from testifying to the statements and beliefs of deceased persons, and found other testimony "not credible." The Court concluded, “[M]ary’s intent ... was for cryonic suspension of her last remains and that wish shall not be put asunder.”
By necessity, the testimony included some evocative details, including the efforts to maintain the head at supercool temperatures by packing it with dry ice while the court case was pending. The dispute was widely reported in the regional, national and international media, often engendering impassioned comments from readers on opposite sides of the issues raised.
SOURCE Holme Roberts & Owen LLP