the cemetery's previous owner. Southwick entered into contracts for cremains to
be buried in small plots in this urn garden.
On August 25, 2011, the City advised Southwick of its waterline easement
that ran through the cemetery and requested Southwick remove any obstructions in
the easement area. After the City performed a survey, Southwick realized it had
placed the urn garden in the easement. Southwick then moved the um garden about
nine feet to relocate it outside the easement area. The garden and relationship of
the plots within retained the same alignment.
A granddaughter oftwo people whose cremains had been buried in the um
garden filed a complaint that Southwick had moved the cremains without
providing advance notice oftheir relocation. On August 26, 2014,the Department
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Southwick, Inc. v. Wash. State Funeral & Cemetery Bd.,Flo. 95237-0
of Licensing (Department)' issued a statement of charges against Southwick,
alleging Southwick had violated RCW 68.24.060,^ 68.50.200,^ and 68.50.220.
Only the last alleged violation is relevant to this case as it stands before us. RCW
68.50.220 provides:
RCW 68.50.200 and 68.50.210 do not apply to or prohibit the removal
of any human remains from one plot to another in the same cemetery
or the removal of[human] remains by a cemetery authority from a
plot for which the purchase price is past due and unpaid, to some other
suitable place; nor do they apply to the disinterment of human remains
upon order of court or coroner. However, a cemetery authority shall
provide notification to the person cited in RCW 68.50.200 before
moving human remains.
(Alteration in original.)
Both parties moved for summary judgment. On October 29, 2015, a