Skip to main content

Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 952370.pdf

Citation
Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 952370.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Full Text

1,737 chars
it disinterred the cremains and thus violated RCW 68.50.140(4). Additionally, we

hold that Southwick also violated RCW 68.50.220 for failing to notify next of kin

before disinterring the cremains.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Forest Cemetery, established in 1857, was operated for many years by the

Forest Cemetery Association. In 1947, the association granted the city of Olympia

(City) a waterline easement across the property. The City installed a large

waterline in the easement that provided the City with its main water supply.

By the 1980s, the Forest Cemetery Association had disbanded and the

cemetery fell into disrepair. Southwick purchased Forest Funeral Home and

Cemetery and took over the cemetery operations. Southwick met with the

Washington State Funeral and Cemetery Board (Board)and agreed to honor all the
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Southwick, Inc. v. Wash. State Funeral & Cemetery Bd., No. 95237-0

existing contracts entered into by the prior owner. It had no knowledge ofthe

City's easement on the property.

Pursuant to RCW 68.20.060 and 68.24.110, Southwick adopted rules and

regulations for its day-to-day operations. Southwick's rule 10(j) states:

The Corporation reserves the right to correct errors made by it
in making interments, disinterments or removals .... In the event the
error shall involve the interment ofthe remains of any person in such
property, the Corporation reserves and shall have the right to remove
and reinter the remains in the property conveyed in lieu thereof.

Admin. Record(AR)at 86, 112. At some point, Southwick created the Devotion

Urn Garden in an area immediately adjacent to a large monument, constructed by