Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 952370.pdf

applies to cemeteries, and Southwick cannot dispute it failed to notify family

13
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Southwick, Inc. v. Wash. State Funeral & Cemetery Bd., No. 95237-0

members before moving the cremains. Therefore, Southwick was not acting with

the authority oflaw provided by RCW 68.50.220 that would have exempted it

from RCW 68.50.140's general prohibition of disinterring remains.

We affirm the Court of Appeals and hold that Southwick was not acting with

"authority oflaw" when it disinterred the cremains without giving prior statutory

notification. Because the facts are undisputed, we hold Southwick also violated

RCW 68.50.220 by failing to notify next of kin before relocating the cremains

within the cemetery. RAP 2.5(a); LaMon v. Butler, 112 Wn.2d 193, 200-01, 770

P.2d 1027(1989)("an appellate court can sustain the trial court's judgment upon

any theory established by the pleadings and supported by the proof, even ifthe trial

court did not consider it"). These violations also establish unprofessional conduct

under RCW 18.235.130(8), supporting the decision by the Board. As referenced,

the Court of Appeals vacated one violation and remanded with instructions to

reconsider the appropriate sanction. We affirm the Court of Appeals and remand to

14
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Southwick, Inc. v. Wash. State Funeral & Cemetery Bd., Flo. 95237-0

the Board for reconsideration of sanctions in light of our holding.10

WE CONCUR:

m

Southwick is not entitled to attorney fees under the Washington Equal Access to
Justice Act, RCW 4.84.340-.350, because it is not the prevailing party.