Grisso v. Nolen
Virginia Supreme Court
262 Va. 688, 554 S.E.2d 91 (2001)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Dillard Nolen (defendant) and Lorraine Nolen, decedent, were married for nearly 40 years before their divorce. After the divorce, Dillard and Lorraine continued to intermittently cohabitate until Lorraine’s death. Dillard and Lorraine had one adult child, Sandra Grisso (plaintiff). Lorraine died intestate and without written burial instructions. After Lorraine’s death, Grisso, as Lorraine’s next-of-kin, arranged for Lorraine to be buried at Sandy Ridge Baptist Church. There was no challenge made to the burial location prior to Lorraine’s interment. Six months later, Dillard petitioned the circuit court to have Lorraine disinterred and reburied at Franklin Memorial Park. Dillard argued that (1) Lorraine had repeatedly stated she wanted to be buried at Franklin Memorial Park, which was why Dillard had purchased a joint plot, headstone, and funeral contract for himself and Lorraine approximately five years after their divorce; and (2) he had standing to bring the suit because it was an in rem action seeking only to effectuate Lorraine’s wishes, not an adversarial action. It was undisputed that Dillard did not have written authorization from Lorraine to manage her burial arrangements. Grisso countered by filing a demurrer arguing that Dillard lacked standing to bring suit to alter Lorraine’s burial arrangements because Dillard and Lorraine were legal strangers following the divorce. Grisso also disputed that Lorraine had wanted to be buried in Franklin Memorial Park. There was no allegation made that Grisso knowingly disregarded Lorraine’s alleged wishes regarding her burial location. The circuit court held that Dillard had standing because of his long-term relationship with Lorraine, despite their divorce, and ordered that Lorraine’s body be disinterred and reburied in Franklin Memorial Park. Grisso appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Koontz, Jr., J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.