On January 19, 2016 the Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7 of California issued its opinion in the case of Jewish Funeral Association, LLC v. Hollywood Forever, Inc. 2016 WL 215868 (2016). The case involved a dispute over the breach of a series of contracts between the parties dealing with the purchase of 60 burial spaces. The primary issue concerned whether the spaces purchased were single or double depth.

  Hollywood Forever had defended the claim on the basis it was barred by the statute of limitation. Hollywood Forever won its motion to dismiss in the trial court, but the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court. The facts reviewed by the Court of Appeal indicates problems related to the contracts engage in by both parties and the reason for the disparity over the number of spaces it is not clear in the opinion.

  The author, however, believes that the most interesting issue in the opinion was the conclusion of the Court of Appeal that the Jewish Funeral Association had the right to its claim for a Declaratory Judgment that the Funeral Rule have been violated. The basis for the claim was a provision in the contracts that stated:

  “The agreement stated that the price of the graves was contingent on the Association and the families it represented purchasing from the Hollywood Funeral Home at least 75 percent of the funerals for the interment spaces, purchasing from Hollywood Forever a monument or memorial for each grave, and not reselling or brokering the spaces.”

  The Jewish Funeral Association claimed that this requirement of the contracts violated the prohibition in section 453.4 (b) of the Funeral Rule that states:

“(b) Other required purchases of funeral goods or funeral services—

(1) Unfair or deceptive acts or practices. In selling or offering to sell funeral goods or funeral services, it is an unfair or deceptive act or practice for a funeral provider to:

(i) Condition the furnishing of any funeral good or funeral service to a person arranging a funeral upon the purchase of any other funeral good or funeral service, except as required by law or as otherwise permitted by this part;”

  The Court of Appeal decision does not reach any conclusion on the claim other than it can be asserted in future proceedings. It is probable that this dispute will continue and the author will report on any future decisions if published.

  This article is for the information of subscribers and does not constitute legal advice about this subject. All subscribers should accordingly consult with their own attorney to make sure they are in compliance with the laws in their state when dealing with an incident.