135 N.E.3d 955
Ind. Ct. App.2019Background
- In 1982 Salyer bought five contiguous gravesites (Lot 14 and Gravesite 15) and received certificates of ownership; she intended family members to be buried adjacently.
- Decades later the Cemetery inadvertently sold Gravesite 15 a second time; Lowell Johnson was buried there. The Cemetery acknowledged the mistake but said records were incomplete.
- Salyer sued seeking an order that the Cemetery move Johnson (reinterment) and restore Gravesite 15. Kristy Sams (Johnson’s daughter) intervened to oppose disinterment.
- A small-claims court ordered a refund and an adjacent gravesite; this court reversed and remanded to circuit court because small-claims courts lack equitable power to order specific performance or injunctive relief.
- The Ripley Circuit Court found it could not definitively assign blame for marker placement, weighed trauma to Johnson’s family versus Salyer’s changed plans, and awarded Salyer a free open adjacent gravesite instead of ordering exhumation.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: although the statute requires a cemetery to “correct” wrongful burials, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in fashioning an equitable remedy (adjacent plot) rather than ordering disinterment; a dissent advocated mandatory compliance with the statutory duty to correct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Salyer proved the Cemetery committed the wrongful burial | Cemetery admitted mistake; statute requires correction (exhumation) | Evidence equally showed Salyer may have set markers; responsibility unclear | Court assumed arguendo Cemetery at fault but found no reversible error in remedy choice |
| Whether the court abused discretion by ordering an alternate grave instead of reinterment under I.C. § 23-14-59-2 | “Shall correct” means cemetery must exhume/move the wrongly buried person to restore plaintiff's lot | Court has equitable discretion; disinterment would be traumatic to Johnson’s family and Salyer already altered plans; alternative correction is permissible | No abuse of discretion: "correct" need not mandate exhumation; trial court balanced equities and law in awarding an adjacent plot |
Key Cases Cited
- Salyer v. Wash. Regular Baptist Church Cemetery, 63 N.E.3d 1091 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (prior appeal: small claims court lacked jurisdiction to order specific performance or disinterment)
- Kesler v. Marshall, 792 N.E.2d 893 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (specific performance for real estate is an equitable, discretionary remedy)
- Nash v. State, 881 N.E.2d 1060 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (principles of statutory interpretation)
- Orlich v. Orlich, 859 N.E.2d 671 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (prima facie error standard on appeal when appellee doesn't brief)
- Samples v. Wilson, 12 N.E.3d 946 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (two-tier review for sua sponte findings and judgment)