In re Estate of Kievernagel
California Court of Appeal
83 Cal. Rptr. 3d 311 (2008)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Joseph and Iris Kievernagel were married and froze Joseph’s sperm for purposes of in vitro fertilization. Joseph did not want to have a child but nonetheless agreed to have his sperm frozen. Pursuant to a contract with the fertility center, the frozen sperm was Joseph’s sole, separate property. The agreement stated that Joseph’s frozen sperm was to be discarded upon his death. Joseph died, and Iris (plaintiff) filed a petition with the probate court, seeking ownership of Joseph’s frozen sperm. Joseph’s parents (defendants) opposed the petition. The probate court denied Iris’s petition, finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Joseph’s intent was that the sperm be destroyed upon his death. Iris appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Morrison, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 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.