63 N.E.3d 1091
Ind. Ct. App.2016Background
- In 1982 Kathy Salyer purchased five contiguous gravesites in Washington Regular Baptist Church Cemetery; Gravesite #15 (north-most of the five) was reserved for her mother.
- In 2014 the cemetery inadvertently sold and buried Lowell Johnson in Gravesite #15, a site Salyer had already purchased.
- Salyer asked the cemetery to relocate Johnson; the cemetery declined after the Johnson family objected.
- Salyer filed a small claims action seeking removal of the body, treble damages for theft, refund, costs, and other relief; Kristy Sams (Johnson’s daughter) intervened.
- The small claims court entered judgment for Salyer, ordered the cemetery to provide an adjacent burial site and a $75 refund plus costs, but did not order relocation of Johnson; Salyer’s motion to correct errors was denied.
- Salyer appealed, arguing the cemetery must “correct” the wrongful burial under Ind. Code § 23-14-59-2 by relocating Johnson; the cemetery did not file an appellee brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ind. Code § 23-14-59-2 requires relocation of a wrongfully buried person | Salyer: “shall correct” means the cemetery must remove/relocate the wrongfully buried person to restore her lot | Cemetery: (not briefed) but statutes provide immunity from damages and prescribe duties; family objection complicates relocation | Court: § 23-14-59-2 imposes a duty to correct wrongful burials and a court may order the cemetery to perform that duty (specific performance/injunctive relief) |
| Whether the cemetery is liable for damages for a burial in the wrong lot under Ind. Code § 23-14-59-1 | Salyer sought treble damages and claimed theft | Cemetery (statutory defense): § 23-14-59-1 grants immunity for wrong-lot burials | Court: Trial court erred in finding cemetery liable for damages because § 23-14-59-1 immunizes cemetery from such claims |
| Whether the small claims court could order specific performance or injunctive relief (e.g., transfer of burial site or relocation) | Salyer sought court orders to restore rights in her purchased lot (including removal/relocation) | Cemetery relied on small claims procedures and family objections; small claims court limited jurisdiction | Court: Small claims court lacked equitable/injunctive jurisdiction to order specific performance or relocation; such relief exceeds small claims docket authority |
| Appropriate procedural remedy after reversing small claims order | Salyer: transfer or other relief to effect statutory correction | Cemetery: not argued | Court: Reverse and remand for consideration of transfer to plenary docket so equitable/statutory duties can be addressed |
Key Cases Cited
- City of N. Vernon v. Jennings Nw. Reg’l Utils., 829 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 2005) (statutory interpretation principles; plain meaning and harmonization of statute)
- Barrett v. City of Brazil, 919 N.E.2d 1176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (specific statutory provisions control over general ones)
- Nordman v. N. Manchester Foundry, Inc., 810 N.E.2d 1071 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (specific statute controls when provisions conflict)
- Olympus Properties, LLC v. Plotzker, 888 N.E.2d 334 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (small claims court jurisdiction is limited to statutory grant)
- Nielsen Buick Jeep Eagle Subaru v. Hall, 726 N.E.2d 358 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (small claims docket limitations on equitable remedies)
- Sanders v. Area Plan Comm’n of Evansville and Vanderburgh Cnty., 581 N.E.2d 983 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (small claims court lacks power to grant injunctive relief)
- Buckmaster v. Platter, 426 N.E.2d 148 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981) (specific performance and other equitable remedies beyond small claims division)