ILNews

Peace of mind restored: Cemetery trust case results in multi-million dollar settlement

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
It was bad enough that Cecilia Means had to watch as her grandmother's casket was pulled from a waterlogged gravesite where it had been buried for 17 years.

On that day in March 2007, the southeast Indiana woman stood covering her mouth and sobbing as workers pulled the stainless steel casket from several feet of muddy brown water and a steady stream of water leaked from where the lid joined the sides. That day seemed liked a nightmare at the 40-acre cemetery where her grandparents, two uncles, and cousins are buried.

But that wasn't the extent of the problems at Grandview Memorial Gardens, which sits just outside the small town of Madison north of the Ohio River and Kentucky state line. It gets worse.

Not only did other families witness similar situations with their loved ones, but cemetery financial woes were mounting at the same time that plunged a local community into crisis-mode and brought an Indianapolis law firm into their lives.

Wanting to be near family at Grandview when the time came, Means and her husband had two decades earlier decided to prepare for the inevitable and buy burial plots, caskets, grave markers, and opening and closing services for themselves. It was supposed to provide peace of mind, but she later learned in 2006 that the trust fund where her money was supposed to be placed was gone. Her peace of mind vanished.

As many as 3,000 people faced similar concerns and were on the losing end of a $3-$4 million shortfall, and it took an 18-month legal battle to recapture what they'd all lost. Their ordeal was a nightmare, but it's evolved into a legal victory that could be seen as a framework for others ongoing throughout the state and country.

"This has been a local community crisis," said Indianapolis attorney Richard Shevitz with Cohen & Malad, who represented Means as the sole plaintiff in the class action cemetery trust case. "They wanted peace of mind and that's why they bought these contract services, but that peace of mind was shattered when they found out there wasn't any money and they might have to buy those goods again. We're pleased to be able to give them back what was taken away."

Means volunteered at the cemetery and developed a non-profit committee to oversee its upkeep and management amid the trouble. She contacted Shevitz and Cohan & Malad associate Vess Miller to help navigate the legal waters leading up to this lawsuit, which was filed a month after she witnessed her grandmother's grave being disturbed.

The April 2007 suit alleged that four banks serving as trustees and previous Grandview owners mishandled millions from the cemetery's trust fund. The fund was established in 1992 and should have had payments accruing since then. Under Indiana law, money paid for funeral expenses can only be disbursed upon death. But the fund had dwindled to next to nothing by the time this lawsuit came, and it's since been completely wiped out.
 No one knows what happened to the money, and that's the subject of an ongoing grand jury investigation by the Jefferson County Prosecutor's Office. The fund vanished through the years as cemetery ownership changed hands - from Grandview Memorial Gardens Inc. up until 1997, to Carriage Funeral Services of Indiana and Carriage Cemetery Services until January 2001, to Madison Funeral Service through 2005, and then to current owner Grandview Memorial Gardens LLC.

The suit accused cemetery owners of failing to properly deposit money collected for burials and funerals into the trust and also of illegally withdrawing funds. The suit also accused the banks of breaching their fiduciary duty by permitting the money to be disbursed and failing to maintain accounts detailing each individual's payments as required by law.

With the trust fund nearly depleted as the lawsuit began, Shevitz says there was a growing fear that plot owners would be forced to pay for their burial services a second time. Now, with the settlement, it appears that won't happen.

"This is a win-win situation and a good thing for this community," he said. "Everyone's been in such an uproar about this, thinking they'd have to pay twice. "(Carriage Funeral Services and the banks) have in our view very much done the right thing and are going to take care of a problem that otherwise would be difficult to take care of."

Miller said the defendants didn't just roll over for this settlement, that it took tens of thousands of dollars to pay for analyzing an estimated 40,000 discovery documents. This agreement isn't an admission of guilt on behalf of Carriage Funeral Services or any the banks, attorneys said. Cohen & Malad will hold an informational meeting in Madison Nov. 2 to discuss details with the plaintiffs, including how Marion Superior Judge Robyn Moberly is expected to give final approval to the settlement in January. In the meantime, attorneys say that the current cemetery owner who inherited the mess in 2005 will likely have to pay for any prepaid burial goods since the fund is gone.

Similar suits alleging administrative and financial mismanagement are being launched nationally against cemetery owners, and attorneys say this case will provide a roadmap for navigating that ongoing and future litigation.

Another case Shevitz and Miller are handling involves Forest Lawn Memorial Gardens in the Greenwood area. The cemetery owners are accused of transferring more than $20 million in cemetery trust funds and spending some of the money on personal expenses. A Marion County classaction suit has been combined with a civil one filed by Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter, and the case is pending in Johnson Circuit Court. A motion to dismiss hearing is set for mid-November and attorneys expect a ruling by the end of the year.

"We think this (Grandview) case is good framework for these types of cases, and it can provide some guidance," Miller said.

While Grandview plaintiffs achieved a victory, defendants still remain in that suit - Madison Funeral Services and Grandview Memorial Gardens have not resolved claims about ownership. An unresolved classaction suit dealing specifically with waterlogged gravesites also remains pending in the Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division. That case filed in August 2007 is Leathermon v. Grandview Memorial Gardens, et al., 4:07-cv-137, and was removed to federal court from Jefferson Circuit Court because damages could be more than $5 million.

Despite what's left, Means is pleased the nightmare is mostly finished. More than a year after witnessing her grandmother's grave being dug up, she stands near the headstone and points to her plot nearby. Thoughts of the settlement make her smile in the sunlight, even though she wishes it never had gotten to this point.

"We were and are very angry about all of this, about what happened to everyone, to our families, to our plots and caskets, about all the money that's missing," she said. "But this is wonderful and we're very happy with the result." •  
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT