Close this search box.

What Luke Perry Taught Us About Advance Directives

Print Article
advance directives

Although death sometimes arrives with plenty of warning, often there is none. Estate planning, of course, tries to provide a roadmap for both scenarios. The truth is, having an estate plan doesn’t always mean things go smoothly, and when things go smoothly, it’s not always because there was an estate plan.

Take Luke Perry. After the Beverly Hills, 90210 and Riverdale star died last week at the age of 52, some concluded that, because his family didn’t end up in court, he must have had an effective estate plan. Well, maybe. But also maybe not.

Perry died in California, after suffering at least two major strokes. His loved ones gathered after the first episode on Feb. 27, and they were hopeful he would recover. But after another stroke, his family decided that life-sustaining treatment should be removed, and he died on March 4.

If this had happened in Arizona

Because we don’t practice in California, we’ll not pretend to know the nuances of California law. But many states have laws similar to Arizona’s. If he had died here, it’s quite likely that no court proceeding would have been required for such a decision, primarily because Perry’s loved ones appear to have agreed with the course of action.

When it comes to health-care decisions for an incapacitated person, Arizona statutes provide lots of options. Number one on the list is a person appointed as health care agent or guardian already appointed by a court. But if neither one of those is in place, health-care providers are to seek other “surrogate decision makers,” in a specific order of priority. The “first available and willing to serve” may make medical decisions for the person who can’t. The order goes like this:

  1. Spouse, unless legally separated.
  2. Adult child; if more than one, majority of adult children reasonably available for consultation.
  3. A parent.
  4. Domestic partner.
  5. Brother or sister.
  6. Close friend. Adult who has exhibited special care and concern, familiar with patient’s health care views and desires, willing and able to become involved and act in patient’s best interest.

How to make the decision

The decision-maker is then supposed to follow the patient’s wishes, if known. The only reason a court would get involved is if there is a disagreement about who should be the decision maker or the decisions that person makes.

In Perry’s case, many loved ones were reportedly at his bedside: his fiancé, Wendy Madison Bauer, with whom he had been together for more than a decade; Perry’s two children, Jack and Sophie, ages 21 and 18, respectively; his ex-wife Minnie Sharp, divorced in 2003, but with whom he remained close; his mother, Ann Bennett; a brother, Tom Perry, and a sister, Amy Coder, and more.

Under the Arizona statute, had it applied, his fiancé and former spouse would have been down at No. 6, if on the list, if included at all; his children, Jack and Sophie, would have been the main decision makers, and because there are two of them, to get a majority, they would have had to agree on treatment. It seems onerous to leave such a decision to young adults, and they could have declined, and the priority would have fallen to his mother, followed by his siblings.

Even better — plan ahead

It’s pretty easy to see that in some families, the statutory method of determining a decision maker could be fraught with conflict. The better method is to spell out who should make decisions by naming one or more people specifically. Perry could have, and likely did, name an “agent” to make health care decisions for him. The actor had a colon cancer scare in 2015. Reports suggest that the experience prompted him to do some estate planning. Almost every estate plan includes a health care directive. That usually means advance directives — both a health care power of attorney (naming the person to act for you) and a living will (giving guidance regarding types and degree of treatment).

An agent must be an adult, and at that time, Perry’s children were minors. Unless he updated his plan, they likely were not named at all. Legally, then, they might have no power to make the decision (although his document could have required the named agent to consult with them).

Perry’s agent, whoever it was, would be tasked with making decisions that complied with his wishes in his advance directives, or their knowledge of Perry’s values. If Perry’s values weren’t known, the agent could make decisions in Perry’s best interest.

Is it OK for the surrogate to withdraw life-sustaining treatment?

Is death ever in a person’s best interest? It’s of course debatable, and Arizona law has a way to address that dilemma, too. Health care providers may refuse to comply with an agent’s decision or direction that violates the provider’s conscience. If the provider were to refuse, the patient’s care can be transferred to a provider who will follow the patients advance directives or the surrogate’s directions.

In Perry’s case, we may never know who, or what group, made the actual decision. That hardly matters. What does matter is your family’s dynamics and whether, should something tragic occur, you have left sufficient direction to help them through it. Do you have advance directives in place? Luke Perry’s untimely death reminded us: it’s time to get your advance directives completed and signed.

Stay up to date

Subscribe to our Newsletter to get our takes on some of the situations families, seniors, and individuals with disabilities find themselves in. These posts help guide you in the decision making process and point out helpful tips and nuances to take advantage of. Enter your email below to have our entries sent directly to your inbox!

Robert B. Fleming


Robert Fleming is a Fellow of both the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel and the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys. He has been certified as a Specialist in Estate and Trust Law by the State Bar of Arizona‘s Board of Legal Specialization, and he is also a Certified Elder Law Attorney by the National Elder Law Foundation. Robert has a long history of involvement in local, state and national organizations. He is most proud of his instrumental involvement in the Special Needs Alliance, the premier national organization for lawyers dealing with special needs trusts and planning.

Robert has two adult children, two young grandchildren and a wife of over fifty years. He is devoted to all of them. He is also very fond of Rosalind Franklin (his office companion corgi), and his homebound cat Muninn. He just likes people, their pets and their stories.

Elizabeth N.R. Friman


Elizabeth Noble Rollings Friman is a principal and licensed fiduciary at Fleming & Curti, PLC. Elizabeth enjoys estate planning and helping families navigate trust and probate administrations. She is passionate about the fiduciary work that she performs as a trustee, personal representative, guardian, and conservator. Elizabeth works with CPAs, financial professionals, case managers, and medical providers to tailor solutions to complex family challenges. Elizabeth is often called upon to serve as a neutral party so that families can avoid protracted legal conflict. Elizabeth relies on the expertise of her team at Fleming & Curti, and as the Firm approaches its third decade, she is proud of the culture of care and consideration that the Firm embodies. Finding workable solutions to sensitive and complex family challenges is something that Elizabeth and the Fleming & Curti team do well.

Amy F. Matheson


Amy Farrell Matheson has worked as an attorney at Fleming & Curti since 2006. A member of the Southern Arizona Estate Planning Council, she is primarily responsible for estate planning and probate matters.

Amy graduated from Wellesley College with a double major in political science and English. She is an honors graduate of Suffolk University Law School and has been admitted to practice in Arizona, Massachusetts, New York, and the District of Columbia.

Prior to joining Fleming & Curti, Amy worked for American Public Television in Boston, and with the international trade group at White & Case, LLP, in Washington, D.C.

Amy’s husband, Tom, is an astronomer at NOIRLab and the Head of Time Domain Services, whose main project is ANTARES. Sadly, this does not involve actual time travel. Amy’s twin daughters are high school students; Finn, her Irish Red and White Setter, remains a puppy at heart.

Famous people's wills

Matthew M. Mansour


Matthew is a law clerk who recently earned his law degree from the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law. His undergraduate degree is in psychology from the University of California, Santa Barbara. Matthew has had a passion for advocacy in the Tucson community since his time as a law student representative in the Workers’ Rights Clinic. He also has worked in both the Pima County Attorney’s Office and the Pima County Public Defender’s Office. He enjoys playing basketball, caring for his cat, and listening to audiobooks narrated by the authors.