Norwalk Vault Co. of Bridgeport, Inc. v. Mountain Grove Cemetery Ass'n
Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut; May 20, 1980; Connecticut; State Supreme Court
Eight vault manufacturing companies, a burial vault manufacturers’ association, six funeral directors, two funeral director associations, and two private cemetery plot owners initiated consolidated legal actions against Mountain Grove Cemetery Association. They allege that Mountain Grove unlawfully sells burial vaults for profit, claiming this practice violates General Statutes 20-230 and exceeds its corporate charter. The first case seeks monetary damages and an injunction to stop the sales, while the second case challenges Mountain Grove's authority to sell vaults, aiming for the forfeiture of its corporate charter and dissolution.
Mountain Grove, established in 1849 and organized as a non-stock corporation in 1889, operates a cemetery on over 125 acres and generates income from various services, including the sale of burial lots and crematory operations. Although not mandated by law, cemetery regulations require caskets to be placed within nonperishable vaults to maintain grave integrity and aesthetic quality. Typically, burial vaults are purchased through funeral directors, who handle orders with manufacturers. Historically, Mountain Grove has engaged in vault sales, including a plan in 1975 to offer double depth lawn crypts, for which it sought bids from vault manufacturers. However, Norwalk Vault Company declined to bid, citing legal concerns over cemetery sales of funeral merchandise. Ultimately, Mountain Grove procured and installed 128 double depth crypts from a Pennsylvania manufacturer. The plaintiffs have appealed the judgments favoring Mountain Grove.
The installation involved excavating about one acre to create a drainage system made up of pipes and washed gravel, with organic tile placed around the perimeter. This system is designed to manage water seepage into an unsealed crypt until both caskets are placed inside. Water is drained through a vent at the bottom of the crypt. The crypts are positioned side by side, 1.5 inches apart, to integrate with the drainage system, and the area is backfilled with topsoil and reseeded. For double depth burials, only eighteen inches of soil needs to be removed to access the crypt. Mountain Grove has sold 17 or 18 double depth graves, with proceeds allocated for cemetery maintenance. Plaintiffs argue that double depth crypts are personal property not necessary for cemetery operations, claiming sales violate General Statutes 20-230. The defendant contends the crypts are affixed to the real estate, with the lot owner only receiving the use of the space inside, which is permitted by its charter. The trial court concluded that the crypts became fixtures upon installation, making their sale part of cemetery property conveyance authorized by Mountain Grove’s charter for cemetery land acquisition. The plaintiffs’ challenge is centered on the intent of permanent annexation to the realty, which is assessed based on the installation date and the property’s intended use. The nature of the property conveyed to lot holders, rather than its classification in other disputes, is the primary concern. To be considered a fixture, an item must be annexed to the realty with clear intent of permanence, assessed by its integration and intended use at the time of annexation.
Plaintiffs assert that burials are meant to be permanent; however, the presence of a sealed single depth vault does not automatically classify it as a fixture due to industry customs allowing its removal during disinterment. The intent of lot holders about single depth vault removals does not apply to double depth crypts. The trial court found that if disinterment of a deceased from a double depth crypt is necessary, the casket would be relocated to another vault, while the crypt itself would remain in place for potential future use. No evidence was presented by the plaintiffs indicating that purchasers of double depth crypts intended for them to be removed upon disinterment. The conveyance documents for burial plots indicate that title to the vault is not transferred to the lot holder, only granting the right to use the space for burial. This aligns with a historical ruling indicating that a cemetery plot deed does not confer ownership of the land but permits limited use for interment, subject to cemetery regulations. Plaintiffs argue that the installation of double depth crypts violates public policy by granting the cemetery an exclusive selling privilege for burial vaults. However, privileges related to these crypts are incidental to the broader privilege of conveying burial plots, which state laws can grant to specific organizations. The trial court concluded that double depth crypts are permanently affixed to the property and thus classified as fixtures conveyed with the cemetery realty, supporting the legality of Mountain Grove's actions. Consequently, the court determined that the charter allows the installation and conveyance of double depth crypts as part of the cemetery's realty, rendering further arguments regarding their classification as funeral merchandise unnecessary.
The section referenced has been impliedly repealed due to the enactment of the 1969 Special Act, which authorized certain activities that the earlier section prohibited. The ruling confirming this was unanimous among the judges. The two private plaintiffs, as cemetery lot owners, have established standing, rendering the standing of other plaintiffs unnecessary to consider. The defendant cemetery filed counterclaims against several plaintiffs, alleging conspiracy to restrain commerce in violation of the Sherman Act and state statutes, but the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on these counterclaims, with no appeal filed by the defendant. The defendant's motion to reopen these judgments has yet to be addressed by the trial court, leaving the counterclaim issues unresolved in this court.
The excerpt distinguishes between different burial methods, specifically double depth burial, which involves placing two vaults in one grave. The refusal to sell double depth lawn crypts to Mountain Grove is noted, despite prior advice that such vaults do not qualify as funeral merchandise. The Mountain Grove charter grants the right to buy and sell items necessary for cemetery operations and outlines the transfer of titles for cemetery lots and receptacles. The plaintiffs reference a case where a cemetery regulation limiting burial vault purchases was invalidated, emphasizing that exclusive sales rights are not inherent to the cemetery's charter powers.
Further arguments regarding public policy violations related to the defendant's actions were previously resolved in favor of the cemetery in another case. The determination that double depth crypts are part of real estate negates the need to discuss whether their sale is authorized under the personal property section of the charter. The term “proper” in the charter has been interpreted to allow the sale of certain items, such as bronze markers, as necessary for cemetery maintenance. Additionally, General Statutes Sec. 20-230 prohibits conducting funeral-related businesses on cemetery or tax-exempt properties, limiting activities to supervision of funerals or embalming.
