Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves an appeal concerning two primary issues: the legality of using vacant lands for cemetery purposes under section 157.06 and the tax-exempt status of these lands under section 70.11(13). The plaintiff argues that the restrictions of section 157.06 do not apply to cemeteries established before the 1933 amendment. The court supports this view, referencing Blooming Grove v. Roselawn Memorial Park Co., and concludes that the existing cemetery's expansion into vacant lands is lawful. The trial court's ruling, which restricted cemetery boundaries based on lack of burials at the time of the amendment, is reversed. The court further clarifies that cemeteries platted and prepared for use before the amendment are considered 'now in use.' Additionally, the court affirms the tax-exempt status of the lands under section 70.11(13), noting consistent cemetery use and city records. However, the court modifies the ruling to require consent from health authorities and the city council for cemetery expansions, per section 157.06. The judgment is modified to assert the requirement of obtaining necessary consents for the use of additional lands for cemetery purposes while maintaining their tax-exempt status.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Cemetery Restrictions under Section 157.06subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that section 157.06 restrictions do not apply to cemeteries already in operation before the 1933 amendment, allowing them to expand into vacant lands without violating the statute.
Reasoning: The court, referencing the case Blooming Grove v. Roselawn Memorial Park Co., 1939, found that the restrictions in section 157.06 do not apply to cemeteries already in operation, supporting the plaintiff's position that their existing cemetery could expand into the vacant lands without violating the statute.
Consent Requirement for Cemetery Expansionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court required that expansions of existing cemeteries established before 1933 must meet the consent requirements from health and social services and the city council, as outlined in sec. 157.06.
Reasoning: The plaintiff may use the vacant land for cemetery purposes if consent from the department of health and social services and the council is obtained, and such consent cannot be arbitrarily withheld.
Definition of 'Now in Use' for Cemeteriessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court clarified that cemeteries dedicated, platted, and with lots sold prior to the 1933 amendment are considered 'now in use,' even if not used for actual burials at the time of the amendment.
Reasoning: The court concluded that Roselawn Memorial Park was indeed 'now in use' as of June 14, 1933, having been dedicated, platted, and with lots sold for burials.
Property Tax Exemption for Cemetery Landssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that cemetery lands used exclusively for public burial grounds, including adjacent lands, are exempt from taxation under sec. 70.11(13) Stats, based on consistent cemetery use and city records.
Reasoning: Cemetery property is exempt from taxation under sec. 70.11(13) Stats if it serves as public burial grounds or is adjacent land used exclusively for cemetery purposes.