Body Missing from Funeral Home.

[Mr Evilwrench]

Whoo, I'll plan to check out during business hours, because [STRIKE]inflicting my ashes on[/STRIKE]honoring my memory with the gift of my ashes to the family is part of [STRIKE]my last prank[/STRIKE]the ceremony to me.

 

[littletommy]

Had a friend who worked for a local funeral home years ago, and I remember him saying it was their policy (I think) that someone had to be in the place at all times if there was a body in the building, or maybe it was on the property (the funeral home also had a small house on the same lot), he said it was in case the place caught on fire or there was some other emergency that would require them to move the remains out of the building.

Is this a state law, or just the policy of that one funeral home? The place I'm talking about is in Indiana.

 

[Cygnus]

On the contrary, while there may well be true love between them, I would not be surprised if his​ bank account turned her head initially.

You're right. Not a lot of people go into that business. As a result those guys usually make a killing.

 

[funeralweb]

Had a friend who worked for a local funeral home years ago, and I remember him saying it was their policy (I think) that someone had to be in the place at all times if there was a body in the building, or maybe it was on the property (the funeral home also had a small house on the same lot), he said it was in case the place caught on fire or there was some other emergency that would require them to move the remains out of the building.

Is this a state law, or just the policy of that one funeral home? The place I'm talking about is in Indiana.

That would be a company's policy.

 

[mbills2223]

She battled Cystic Fibrosis...the family has already been through enough. Would love to meet up with the asshat behind this...

 

[Dead Duck]

Truly makes me want to drive to Texas.
There's just something about this case that I can't shake.

 

[mbills2223]

You're not the only one

 

[Alamo]

Police: Woman's body stolen from casket in San Antonio - San Antonio Express-News

Tips, a personal friend of the Mott family, said funeral services for the woman were held on Aug. 15, which would have marked her 26th birthday.

...

Tips said authorities believe the individual responsible for the theft may have an ideological opposition to the cremation process, as opposed to traditional burial.
“We feel very strongly that there’s a difference of opinion there,” he said.

I had wondered about this when I heard she was to be cremated...

 

[HoughMade]

Tips said authorities believe the individual responsible for the theft may have an ideological opposition to the cremation process, as opposed to traditional burial.

So the speculation is that we are looking for someone close to the deceased who was possibly an Orthodox or Conservative Jew, a more traditional Mormon, Muslim, Baha'i, old school Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox.

This being San Antonio, some of these are more likely than others. Honestly, someone steeling the body to bury it is about the best case scenario you can get under these circumstances.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Did anyone check and see if she had any recent arguments with any family members lately?

 

[Dead Duck]

Update -
Man leaving funeral home where Julie Mott's body was stolen 'was obsessed' - Florida Newstime

New information has emerged in the case of a Texas woman whose body was stolen from a casket following her funeral service, with reports the last person seen leaving the funeral home was a man who obsessed with the woman.

According to an incident report obtained by My San Antonio, police have identified a potential suspect that was obsessively texting and calling Mott before her death on August 8.

Now, if this tip came from the slimy Dick, then I'm calling BS.
Dudes been way too helpful in volunteering information, and money, and the means, and the motive, and the opportunity,.....

 

[HoughMade]

​...Now, if this tip came from the slimy Dick, then I'm calling BS.
Dudes been way too helpful in volunteering information, and money, and the means, and the motive, and the opportunity,.....

He planted texts and phone calls on her phone?

 

[foszoe]

Or even traditional Christian. (proto-orthodox in scholarly circles]

Pagan religions burned the body to free the soul from the body. When proto-orthodox Christians began preaching the bodily resurrection and burying the body, pagans would burn the body to keep a bodily resurrection impossible.

In modern day Orthodox old country practice, the body is exhumed after a period of time and the bones are placed in an ossuary. This is how saints are discovered for if, when exhumed, the body has not decomposed and especially if there is a sweet smelling fragrance it's a sign of possible sainthood.

A notable exception is Japan where cremation is required by law. It's the only Orthodox Church where I know cremation is practiced although I don't know the specifics.

So the speculation is that we are looking for someone close to the deceased who was possibly an Orthodox or Conservative Jew, a more traditional Mormon, Muslim, Baha'i, old school Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox.

This being San Antonio, some of these are more likely than others. Honestly, someone steeling the body to bury it is about the best case scenario you can get under these circumstances.

 

[Alamo]

Update: Parents believe they know who stole San Antonio woman's body from funeral home, but no arrests - San Antonio Express-News

Well, not much of an update, really. Basically I think the only purpose for the news conference was the hope it would somehow pressure whoever stole the body to tell them where it is.

 

[Alamo]

aaaaaannnnnnd here comes the lawsuit:
Julie Mott stolen body: Family sues funeral home
Mission Park sued by two families over funeral mishaps - San Antonio Express-News

The first link has a lot of details about the prime suspect, the "obsessed" former boyfriend...

 

[Vigilant]

On the contrary, while there may well be true love between them, I would not be surprised if his​ bank account turned her head initially.

^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^

 

[HoughMade]

aaaaaannnnnnd here comes the lawsuit:
Julie Mott stolen body: Family sues funeral home
Mission Park sued by two families over funeral mishaps - San Antonio Express-News

The first link has a lot of details about the prime suspect, the "obsessed" former boyfriend...

It should not be a difficult case to prove, with the caveat that if third party criminal actions is still a strong defense in Texas, that would make it a more difficult case.

What I mean by that is this: the body was entrusted to the funeral home. They lost it. It is, or is close to a "bailment" where there is strict liability (not negligence) if the "item" is lost or destroyed. Even under a negligence standard, not losing the body really seems like the base level of competence required. The fact that the body is missing is substantial evidence, in and of itself, that adequate measures were not taken to secure it.

Now, up until 1999 (in Indiana), if a third party committed a criminal act that resulted in a loss, then that, very easily, could cut off the liability of others. If a funeral home could prove that someone broke in and stole the body, the funeral home would have ben very unlikely to be held liable. The idea was that the criminal acts of others were not foreseeable as a matter of law and, therefore, there was no duty to prevent them. However, in 1999, cases were decided that made it much harder to cut off liability due to third party criminal acts. These cases set a standard that foreseeability could be established by the "totality of the circumstances." That is, it would not be presumed that a criminal act is unforeseeable, but rather if there was evidence that the particular criminal act was foreseeable based upon a "totality of the circumstances", liability could still attach even if the ultimate harm was the result of somebody else's crime. the circumstances could be any number of things (history of crimes, bad neighborhood, threats, etc.) that could make a crime reasonably foreseeable. Because "totality of the circumstances" is an inherently fact intensive inquiry, it made summary judgment on cases involving third party criminal acts very difficult to get if there was any evidence to support foreseeability. If there was evidence that a criminal act was reasonably foreseeable, then a jury has to decide whether reasonable steps were taken to prevent the crime.

If Texas law is similar to current Indiana law (big if), then the funeral home will have some difficulty defending this case. As I mentioned above, holding onto the body and keeping it secure pending internment is the base level duty that a funeral home should fulfill. If media reports are accurate (another big if) there is not good evidence of exactly what happened, only speculation. Without a firm criminal act to point to, it all falls back on the funeral home, and even if they can establish a criminal act, I believe that absent showing how they took all reasonable precautions to secure the body, but someone broke in, broke locks, defeated reasonable security measures (which I have heard no evidence of) they are going to have a hard time defending on liability.

Now, damages, that's a whole other can of worms. There generally is not a monetary value to human remains. That leaves emotional damages. In Indiana, I'm not so sure there can be recovery for emotional damages. there was a Court of Appeals case that allowed emotional damages in a roughly similar case, but that case has since been held to be the illogical aberration that it is.

Interesting case, this.

 

[Dead Duck]

It should not be a difficult case to prove, with the caveat that if third party criminal actions is still a strong defense in Texas, that would make it a more difficult case.

What I mean by that is this: the body was entrusted to the funeral home. They lost it. It is, or is close to a "bailment" where there is strict liability (not negligence) if the "item" is lost or destroyed. Even under a negligence standard, not losing the body really seems like the base level of competence required. The fact that the body is missing is substantial evidence, in and of itself, that adequate measures were not taken to secure it.

Now, up until 1999 (in Indiana), if a third party committed a criminal act that resulted in a loss, then that, very easily, could cut off the liability of others. If a funeral home could prove that someone broke in and stole the body, the funeral home would have ben very unlikely to be held liable. The idea was that the criminal acts of others were not foreseeable as a matter of law and, therefore, there was no duty to prevent them. However, in 1999, cases were decided that made it much harder to cut off liability due to third party criminal acts. These cases set a standard that foreseeability could be established by the "totality of the circumstances." That is, it would not be presumed that a criminal act is unforeseeable, but rather if there was evidence that the particular criminal act was foreseeable based upon a "totality of the circumstances", liability could still attach even if the ultimate harm was the result of somebody else's crime. the circumstances could be any number of things (history of crimes, bad neighborhood, threats, etc.) that could make a crime reasonably foreseeable. Because "totality of the circumstances" is an inherently fact intensive inquiry, it made summary judgment on cases involving third party criminal acts very difficult to get if there was any evidence to support foreseeability. If there was evidence that a criminal act was reasonably foreseeable, then a jury has to decide whether reasonable steps were taken to prevent the crime.

If Texas law is similar to current Indiana law (big if), then the funeral home will have some difficulty defending this case. As I mentioned above, holding onto the body and keeping it secure pending internment is the base level duty that a funeral home should fulfill. If media reports are accurate (another big if) there is not good evidence of exactly what happened, only speculation. Without a firm criminal act to point to, it all falls back on the funeral home, and even if they can establish a criminal act, I believe that absent showing how they took all reasonable precautions to secure the body, but someone broke in, broke locks, defeated reasonable security measures (which I have heard no evidence of) they are going to have a hard time defending on liability.

Now, damages, that's a whole other can of worms. There generally is not a monetary value to human remains. That leaves emotional damages. In Indiana, I'm not so sure there can be recovery for emotional damages. there was a Court of Appeals case that allowed emotional damages in a roughly similar case, but that case has since been held to be the illogical aberration that it is.

Interesting case, this.

You are one sick puppy!

 

[Alamo]

...pending internment ....

Grammar Police! (I can't believe there is no emoticon for Grammar Police).

Sir, put your hands down on the desk and DO NOT attempt to reach for that keyboard!

Internment is confining people, especially lots of them, without trial.

Interment is burying a body. Sometimes happens after internment.

OK, sir I'm just going to give you a warning this time, you may proceed, but try to keep your eyes on the text next time...

 

[Alamo]

It should not be a difficult case to prove, with the caveat that if third party criminal actions is still a strong defense in Texas, that would make it a more difficult case...
.

Consulting with the well-known legal advisor I.N. Ternet, ....

Yes, it appears that in Texas, criminal actions by a third party can to some degree protect the property owner from liability. Most all of the cases that I have seen tho involve an actual proven crime by a third party -- there's no doubt a third party shot, raped, murdered, robbed, etc a customer (or "invitee" in Texas legalese). There are some factors to consider then about how foreseeable that particular crime was. Where property owners have been held liable, there has usually been some kind of recent history of similar types of crimes (altho this is not absolutely necessary).

In this case, the plaintiff is not alleging that they were injured by a crime and the defendant should have foreseen it, they're just saying the defendant lost possession of the body and that is gross negligence. So to take advantage of a third party criminal action, the defendant is going to have to prove there was a crime. To date, AFAIK, there's actually no evidence of that: no video, no evidence of break-in, the body has not been found under "obsessed" boyfriend's bed (and the police have search his and relative's homes), nada. Oops.

The family is suing only the funeral home, not any other parties, criminal or otherwise. However, the defendant can designate a "Responsible Third Party" such as a criminal, and have the RTP's responsibility for the harm determined. My understanding of how liability and "contributions" of liable parties are distributed is very thin, but it appears that if anyone party is responsible for more than 50% of the harm, that party can be assessed 100% of the damages. Thus if the funeral home can convince the jury that a criminal party is largely to blame for all this and the funeral home had less than 50% responsibility, then all of the damages can be assessed to the criminal RTP. If no one breaks 50% responsibility, then I think each party has to pay in proportion to its assessed responsibility. So I am really speculating her, but if the funeral home can show some responsibility on the plaintiffs (e.g. for letting the crazy boyfriend attend?), as well has an RTP, then maybe nobody breaks 50% and then at least the funeral home only has to pay a percentage, rather than the whole bill.

I think. I am a lot surer about the differences between "interment" and "internment."