Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › Strictly Surveying › Lawyers
-
As one of the trustees for a cemetery I can not understand why it would make one bit of difference if burials had already occurred within a tract designated as a cemetery. One possible situation would be the case of a private, family cemetery that has graves but no set dimensions of record.
The other, rare circumstance would be when a parcel has been acquired that is not contiguous to an existing cemetery and the first burial on said parcel has yet to occur.
Another rare case would involve something like a pipeline that might desire to slice across a portion of a cemetery and pay well for that privilege. If that section had no burials and none of the lots had been sold, it could be used for the pipeline, but, at a high price.
An example of that rare case involves a cemtery for which I laid out enough lots to last a thousand years. The cemetery was created about 1870 and contained about three acres but located several hundred feet from the nearest public roadway. There was a strip purchased from an adjoining landowner at some point in time to form the access lane. Jump forward in time more than 110 years to the 1980s. The elderly adjoiner who had numerous relatives buried in the cemetery, donated ten acres to the cemetery with the condition that he be the first one buried on the tract at a place of his chosing. That happened rather soon after the donation. Today, there might be ten burials on that ten acres.
-
Nearby US highway that runs from southern Texas to Canada is wedged between two, separately-controlled cemeteries. Increasing the road width at all would involve moving bodies. A complete realignment would be the other option. Or, a fly-over stretch of overpass in the middle of the countryside. Probably could purchase air rights.
-
Back in the early 80’s I spent a year in charge of the surveying at several strip coal mines operated by the guy who also owned the road construction company I worked for. At the largest one the highwall was 7000’ long and 120’ high, and as it progressed to the east there was an old cemetery in the way. I’m not sure what hoops were jumped thru, but one night the occupants all got relocated to somewhere else.
-
Allow four hours for the KC to STL drive. Roughly 250 miles with Columbia very close to the midpoint if you need a break
Google says:
3 hr 46 min (248.2 mi) via I-70 E
I hope everyone has a great day; I know I will! -
@aliquot Yes, I realize the lawyer will argue about the meaning of “occupied” in reference to “cemetery purposes”. Could be a bunch of living people squatting there waiting to die so they don’t have to be carried so far, or want to be first in the ground. What is the meaning of is:) That’s what makes it so funny.
-
Allow four hours for the KC to STL drive. Roughly 250 miles with Columbia very close to the midpoint if you need a break
Google says:
3 hr 46 min (248.2 mi) via I-70 E
Depends on where in KC you’re leaving and where in StL you are arriving. TOD makes a huge difference in both as well. Rush hour in either one can add 30-45 minutes.
My boys enjoy the taking the Amtrak River Runner back in forth.
-
Did you hear about the Philidelphia lawyer ? It was soooo cold this past winter he had to keep his hands in his own pockets !
-
I do know honorable lawyers, so I hope this won’t give offense: In French, the same word — “avocat” — means both “lawyer” and “avocado.” Somehow, that seems like more than coincidence.
-
@duane-frymire or something much more mundane like an area fenced off with plans to bury the family.
-
@aliquot You mean held for cemetery purposes? Again, not what the note said. Do you note possible cemetery every time you see a fenced in area? Mere fencing does not indicate occupation for any specific purpose.
I think the note was fine, and the follow up call was fine, but still funny.
Not all cemeteries are mentioned in the record, nor by a useful person during the survey. So it’s worth noting if you see physical evidence of use/occupation for cemetery purposes. And I think the only thing that qualifies would be headstones of some sort. If the Attorney wants to know if anyone is actually buried there, then I would discuss why/what are they trying to do. Then we could move on to whether to retain a firm to do some GPR or maybe need a level 2 or 3 archeological dig. But much like utilities, if you want me to say someone or how many someones is actually under that headstone then we need to investigate further. And if you need to know how many headstones, what sort of configuration, etc. etc., that again is probably not under the current contract.
-
@duane-frymire I have no compliments about your note. I think I have used “graves” though to avoid these kinds of questions. When does a grave become a cemetery? And “cemetery puropses” doesn’t mean there are any graves.
“Held for cemetery purposes” denotes some kind of thought or document but no actual “occupation”.
An area occupied for cemetery purposes but with no graves could be graded, walkways built, blank headstones put in place, or even a structure built to serve as an office for a cemetery…
I don’t know about you, but there certainly has been a few times that I have been burned by making assumptions based on a statement that seemed obvious, but turned out to not be true, because I read between the lines a little too much.
-
@aliquot For you’re consideration:
“Pinelawn contends that the land comprising the three taxed parcels is not being currently utilized only in the sense that it is being held in reserve for future burial of the dead. In our opinion the taxed parcels are being utilized for cemetery purposes even though no dead body has yet to be interred therein. As the Court of Appeals stated some 70 years ago in People ex rel. Buffalo Burial Park Assn. v Stilwell (190 N.Y. 284, 290-291): “There can be no doubt that the lands of a cemetery association actually used and occupied for cemetery purposes are exempt from taxation under chapter 310 of the Laws of 1879 [the progenitor of our present Real Property Law, § 450] * * * But if it be assumed for the purpose of the argument that everything stated in the return is to be taken as true, these facts do not necessarily show that the land was taxable, or that it was not devoted to cemetery purposes within the fair meaning of the law. The cemetery in question was, to use a business expression, a going and growing concern. It was not all occupied by burial plots or by the graves of the dead. It may not be fully occupied for such purposes for many years to come. Of course it is not necessary that the cemetery should be filled with graves in order to be entitled to the exemption” (emphasis supplied). (See People ex rel. Oak Hill Cemetery Assn. v Pratt, 129 N.Y. 68.) “
Occupation for cemetery purposes is not the same as held for cemetery purposes, and occupation for cemetery purposes means graves were observed. I rest my case.
-
@holy-cow Oscar Zerk was for sure a cool guy, but whoever wrote “While still in his teens, he devised an electrically operated textile machine controlled by a then-unheard of punch card system,” is off the mark, in regard to the “then-unheard of” claim. Zerk would have been in his teens in the 1890s. Joseph Marie Jacquard around 1804 had developed a punch-card-controlled loom, and even he was building on the works of prior inventors. With improvements by others, Jacquard’s invention soon achieved major commercial success, about 80 years prior to the efforts of the teenaged Zerk.
By the way, the lead photo in the Wikipedia article below is a posthumous portrait of Jacquard, woven by a Jacquard loom. Pretty good for the first half of the 1800s (and I like the tool rack in the background).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquard_machine
Very interesting. One of my old nom de guerre was the Babbage Society. Stolen from a book called in the Country of the Blind. He used the principles of Jacquard’s Loom to design a punch card driven Analytical Machine (EDIT:as mentioned in the wiki article I see). IE the basis for the modern computer. In the Early 90’s a group actually built his analytical machine using 1800s technology and found that it worked. (Babbage never built, he just came up with the idea).
The book was very interesting and my first exposure to the word meme.
The fictional Babbage Society had built the Analytical Machine to determine probabilistic future outcomes of society and would release memes to subtly guide things in the direction they want.
On a side note,
A girl goes to the OBGYN and is very nervous.
“I am worried about getting pregnant, is it possible to get pregnant if I only have Anal sex?”
To which the doctor answered,
“How do you think Lawyers are conceived?”
-
@duane-frymire thanks for sharing this. It’s interesting.
It looks like the court agreed with me that land can be occupied for cemetery purposes without having actual burials.
Land “Occupied for cemetery purposes” was exempt from taxation, but “Of course it is not necessary that the cemetery should be filled with graves in order to be entitled to the exemption.”
So according to the court, for taxation, land “occupied for cemetery purposes” doesn’t have to have graves. Of course, that doesn’t mean that land occupied for cemetery purposes doesn’t need to have graves to meet the requirments of other legal provisions (or for taxation outside of NY).
This certainly supports an attorney who is unsure if there are graves based on the note.
Again I have no critism of your use of that note. We can’t ever include all information that could be useful to all future users of our plats.
-
@aliquot You’re still missing the distinction between “occupied” and “held”, but that’s okay the law is a very nuanced thing.
The only reason I continue to post on this is that you are questioning the sufficiency of a surveyors note that could lead to liability for a surveyor. I would testify that the note is sufficient and fully describes the conditions observed in a way to alert the holder of the map that graves and/or burial plots are in existence on the parcel, rather than a mere future contemplated use.
-
@duane-frymire as I said it’s sufficient for most survey purposes, but it doesn’t answer the question of whether any bodies are buried there are any liability issues unless you were specifically hired to locate dead bodies.
The court explicitly said that the term “occupied for cemetery purposes” can include land with no graves. You are right, land can be “held for cemetery purposes” without being “occupied for cemetery purposes” but as the court clearly stated, land can be occupied for cemetery purposes without bodies.
Also, even though the court said the same thing I am saying, I think its important to point out that I wouldn’t try to make an argument about a survey note based on a court decision analyzing a tax law, unless that tax law was the specific reason for the note. Tax laws are notorious for having there own definitions that are in opposition to the definitions used in other areas of the law.
-
@aliquot You will not have luck passing a law school exam. But more importantly you fail the common sense test.
Some surveyors are just so bad at interpretation of language. I don’t even know what you’re talking about at this point. I don’t know how you get any of your arguments out of what the court said. But that’s actually pretty normal. I’ve been on cross exam for hours with gibberish like this. Court has always agreed with me.
-
Log in to reply.