In connection with this story.
The report seems to be a little confused. The headline and first paragraph refer to ‘theft’ and ‘stealing’ but the actual charge was disinterment of a body.
Anyway to my question. Could he have been charged with theft? If so, theft from whom? Who has legal ownership of a corpse? It seems to me that the son would have as much right as anyone if his father’s corpse could be classed as property.
We have 2 dogs, some hamsters, parakeets, and a hummingbird buried out back.
No reanimation plans at this time, though.
The executor of the will is responsible for how the corpse is interned. The cemitary “owns” it after that.
I’ve seen some interns like that.
The first paragraph was explaining what happened more colloquially. The second paragraph reported the specific charges.
It’s like a story saying: “A local man killed his wife in a domestic dispute yesterday. He has been arrested and charged with second degree homicide.”
There are any number of local laws dealing with the disposition of the body, which I would assume also exhuming the body once it’s been interred. So, IMO, “theft” just reads better than ‘unlawful exhumation.’
From personal experience at least in Arizona, the body belongs to the next-of-kin independent of any will.
Hey! A zombie thread that isn’t even very old!
You meant interred
If the the cemetery is the lawful custodian of the body then any unauthorized removal could be termed “thrift”. If you broke into a bank to steal items from your own safety deposit box, it would still be larceny.
It would be “thrift” only if one stole one’s savings. Otherwise, it would be “theft”. 
It might not be. Larceny is generally defined as taking property that doesn’t belong to you. The crime you’re describing would be trespassing, most likely with burglary (which is entering a building to commit a criminal act - so if you busted a lock or broke the vault, you’d have committed a crime against the bank separate from taking your property).
As in Arizona, in Illinois the body belongs to the next of kin.
My understanding is theft is removing any property that you don’t have a right legally possess. Whether you own it is irrelevant. For example, I can be charged with theft if lease something to you, and then take it from you before the lease has expired. Just because I own something it does not give me a right to possess it.
Depending on exactly what arrangement you have with the bank, you may well be charged with theft for taking stuff from your own deposit box.
Can you back that up with a cite? Doubtless you could be sued for breach of contract, but I’m not sure that you have committed a crime.
That seems very doubtful to me. The bank has lawful possession of the contents of your deposit box, but that does not exclude your right to possess what you own. In any case, the normal arrangement with the bank would include the owner’s right to regain possession of the contents at any time.
Theft of services maybe but I’m not sure. The guy paid you to use your property but was he paying for the good or for the use of the good? The use of the good would probably qualify as a service but the good itself would not.
If I was a real lawyer, I’d know these things.
Let me check…
Yep. <raises hand>
Oh… wait… I may be misinterpreting the question.
[nitpick]
I think you mean “if I were a lawyer,” unless you are in doubt whether you were a lawyer at the time of those events.
[/nitpick] ::heads for cover from Allied brick-bats::
Did anyone else stop halfway through Saint Cad’s answer, and hope there was an admission of theft coming?
Not me. My dad’s ex-wife tried to steal the corpse.
Subjunctives are subjective - that’s what I always say.