Davis v.

Davis Case Brief Property

Citation  Davis v. Davis

 Supreme Court of Tennessee (1992)
 842 S.W.2d 588, cert. denied 507 U.S. 911 (1993)
Parties  Π – Mary Davis
 ∆ - Junior Davis

Instant Facts  Custody battle over 7 frozen embryos

 No case law to guide court to a decision in this case.

Procedural History 

Facts  Custody battle over 7 frozen embryos

 Both parties have remarried and the π no longer wants to use embryos
but wants authority to donate them to a childless couple.
 ∆ doesn’t not want them donated, he would prefer to see them
discarded.
 There is an absence of 2 critical factors:
o When the couple signed up for the IVF program, they did not
execute a written agreement specifying what disposition should
be made of any unused embryos.
o There was no Tennessee statute governing such disposition at
that time, nor has one been enacted in the meantime.
 No case law to guide court to a decision in this case.


Issue 

Holding 

Rules 

Decision 

Reasoning 

Analysis 

Case Vocabulary  Parens patriae – the state acts as a provider of protection to those unable
to care for themselves.
 Meritorious – having legal worth
 Amici curiae - A person who is not a party to a lawsuit but who petitions
the court or is requested by the court to file a brief in the action because
that person has a strong interest in the subject matter.
 Progenitor - a person or thing from which a person, animal, or plant is
descended or originates. Ex. A parent

Brief Fact Summary. Mary Sue Davis (Defendant) sought control of the seven frozen embryos
stored in a fertility clinic when her husband, Junior Davis (Plaintiff), filed for divorce.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. When the person seeking control of preembryos intends only to
donate them to another couple, the objecting person has the greater interest and should
prevail.

Facts. In attempting a desired pregnancy, Mary Sue (Defendant) and Junior (Plaintiff) Davis, by
way of in vitro fertilization (IVF), produced a number of preembryos, seven of which had been
cryogenically frozen for later transfer to Defendant's uterus. The divorce action by
Plaintiff prompted Defendant to seek control of the "frozen embryos" to attempt a postdivorce
pregnance. Plaintiff objected. They agreed on all terms of dissolution except for disposition of
the embryos. Both parties later remarried, and then Defendant wanted to donate the embryos
to a couple with no children. Plaintiff objected adamantly. The trial court determined that the
embryos were "human beings" from the moment of fertilization and awarded "custody" to
Defendant. The court of appeals reversed and gave joint control to the parties to have an equal
say regarding disposition of the embryos. Defendant appealed.

Issue. When the person seeking control of preembryos intends only to donate them to another
couple, does the objecting person have the greater interest and should that person prevail?

Held. (Daughtrey, J.) Yes. When the person seeking control of preembryos intends only to
donate them to another couple, the objecting person has the greater interest and should
prevail. There is a constitutional right to privacy that includes the right of procreational
autonomy, including the right to procreate and the right to avoid procreation. Preembryos are
neither persons nor property but occupy an interim category, entitling them to special respect
because of their potential for human life. In addition, the state's interest in potential human
life is insufficient to justify an infringement on the procreational autonomy of the persons
providing the gametes [reproductive cells]. Defendant's interest in donation is not as significant
as Plaintiff's interest in avoiding parenthood. If Defendant were seeking to use the preembryos
herself, this case would be closer. Affirmed in favor of the Plaintiff.

Discussion. The court pointed out that its rule did not create an automatic veto. The court
should first look to the preferences of the parents to resolve disputes involving the disposition
of preembryos. Where a dispute exists, any prior agreement regarding disposition should be
enforced. However, if an agreement does not exist, the interests of each party must be
weighed. In most cases, the person wanting to avoid procreation, i.e. parenthood, should
prevail.