^ As the Department points out, Southwick has not shown that any other cemetery is
having similar problems with creating or enforcing cemetery rules that conflict with state
statutes.
12
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Southwick, Inc. v. Wash. State Funeral & Cemetery Bd,'No. 95237-0
Under Southwick's interpretation of the statutory framework,RCW 68.50.220
would be meaningless. A statutory scheme establishing and governing disinterment
requirements cannot be interpreted to allow cemeteries to create rules by contract
exempting themselves from complying with those same statutes.
Southwick also argues that RCW 68.50.140(4) does not apply to its case's
facts. Under the statute, a person is guilty of a class C felony if he or she removes
"human remains from a place of interment, without authority oflaw." "Interment"
is statutorily defined as "the placement of human remains in a cemetery." RCW
68.04.100. Given this definition, Southwick argues that "place of interment" means
a cemetery in general. Therefore, to violate the statute, Southwick would have had
to remove the cremains from the cemetery. We reject this argument. A "place of
interment" is more specific than "interment" and means the particular place
remains are buried, such as a plot within a cemetery.
RCW 68.50.140(4) must also be read in conjunction with RCW 68.50.220,
which addresses a cemetery's ability to move remains within the boundaries of a
cemetery. Under .220, a cemetery under specific circumstances may not need
permission to disinter and relocate remains within the cemetery. However,the
statute mandates that the cemetery shall provide notice to next of kin before
moving remains within a cemetery. The notice requirement is mandatory and