Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 August 24

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 24

When you purchase a grave plot, for how long do you own that plot?

On the Miscellaneous Desk, there was a question that prompted me to think of another somewhat related question. The original question on the Miscellaneous Desk asks: "What happens when graveyards get full?". My question is: when one purchases a grave plot, they own that for all time, into perpetuity, correct? Or is that not a true statement? I am referring to the USA. And, come to think of it, another question: are you purchasing/buying the plot (such that you "own" it) or are you simply "leasing" it? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

In the US, yes, grave plot ownership is assumed to be perpetual, which is something we probably inherited from English law. See [1] for some info on this. This is not the case in most of the world, where plots are typically considered rentals. Cemetery regulation is done by the states in the US, so there is variation in the precise laws from place to place. But an example of just how perpetual things are meant to be, some states actually require commercial cemeteries to have a financial plan in place to pay for the maintenance of the plots forever. That said, every state does have provisions in place for the removal of graves. While the use of a plot is assumed to be permanent, states can and do authorize the movement of interred bodies for various reasons. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

In the UK (and I'm not sure that this is common) I only have a 99 year lease on the plot where my parents are buried. So I presume that after this is up (and after I'm dead too!) they will be dug up and reinterred as my post on the posting Joseph referred to said. Either that or they'll be cremated. Whatever, I'll be long gone! --TammyMoet (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Wherever the US having perpetual grave plot as perpetual has come from, it's certainly not inherited from English law; until the Burials Act 1851, English graves were traditionally reused after a few years, with the existing bodies either being relocated to a charnel house, dumped in pits, or left in situ with the grave's next occupant just laid on top of them (this is why graveyards tend to be significantly higher than the surrounding streets). Hogarth's 1747 engraving of a churchyard, with random bones from previous burials just lying around where the gravediggers have dug them up, isn't an exaggeration. After churchyard burials were banned in 1851, bodies were (and are) traditionally shipped out to big mass cemeteries rather than buried locally. There's a reasonable explanation of how pre- and post-1851 burials in England worked at London Necropolis Company#Background. ‑ iridescent 09:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Churchyards burials are certainly not banned in the UK - I have attended a number. There are a number of references to prove this, including this.--Phil Holmes (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

It depends where you are. The Burials Acts gave the government power to order any city to ban churchyard burials (chapter-and-verse here), which was promptly applied to almost every population centre. Those churchyard burials that do still take place are generally either in country parishes where the pressure on space isn't as acute, or one-off exceptions for people with a particularly strong connection to an area. (In some places, notably central London, the churchyards themselves were dug up and physically relocated away from populated areas.) ‑ iridescent 16:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but I am reasonably confident that the dead cannot own property under US law. (The person's estate can own property, but it has only temporary existence until inheritance claims are settled.) So that by itself seems to answer the original question taken literally. --Trovatore (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I am confused as to what you are saying. You are saying that the deceased person does not own his own grave site; his heirs own it? That doesn't seem quite right to me. But, you also seem correct to say that a deceased person cannot legally own anything at all, regardless. So, I wonder how this works with grave sites? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that is exactly true. If the grave site has been purchased outright, then title passes to the heirs. --Trovatore (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

While my father was researching our family history, he came across a distant great uncle who was buried in a north London cemetery (maybe East Finchley Cemetery?) at the end of the 19th century. We were surprised that the said uncle or his family had paid not only for an ostentatious obelisk, but also to have his burial plot mown and weeded "in perpetuity" and we were able to find it on a current maintenance list on the local council's website. Alansplodge (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Department of Work and Pensions leaflet D 49 April 2003 What to do after a death in England and Wales says on page 19:

There are few legal controls governing the disposal of a body in the United Kingdom. The only requirement is that the death is certified and registered and the body properly taken care of, by either burial or cremation. Burial is virtually free of regulations; individuals can be buried in almost anything and almost anywhere. All that is required is a death certificate signed by a doctor and a certificate for burial from the registrar of deaths (see page 15).

On page 23:

Find out if the person who died had already arranged a grave space in a churchyard or cemetery, by checking the will and looking through their papers.

Churchyards

Most town churchyards and many suburban churchyards are no longer open for burial because there is no space. If you want the burial to be in a churchyard, you can find out from the priest or minister about the space and the right to burial there.

Cemeteries

There will be a deed of grant if a grave space has been paid for in a cemetery. Most cemeteries are non - denominational so you can have most types of service or ceremony. Non - denominational cemeteries are owned by local authorities or private companies, and fees vary.

So the ownership of graves is vested in the proprietor of the cemetery. If the land is registered there will be an entry on the Land Register. If it is not registered there will be deeds. Ownership of land can be investigated by consulting the Land Registry Index Map. There is very little unregistered land left, but most of what there is is owned by public bodies. Some proprietors may restrict burials to people who already have family members buried there.

The City of London Cemetery and Crematorium Scale of Charges from 1st April 2003 says on page 6:

Traditional Indoor Columbarium Lease of a niche for a period of ... (followed by a scale of charges 5 years up to 50 years)

.... Classic Cremated Remains Grave

Lease for a period of ... (followed by a scale of charges 5 years up to 50 years with an optional 5 yr extension)

... Interment of Cremated Remains in Existing Private Graves

... *Please note that additional fees (upon application) are payable if burial space for future coffin interments is to be retained

On page 7:

Cremated Remains Lawn Graves

...Lease for a period of 20 years ...

Optional 5 year extension: Lease not to exceed 20 year maximum period.

On page 8:

Adult New Private Grave and Interment ... (followed by a scale of charges for 50, 75 and 100 year leases)

On page 10:

Reserve Grave for future use ... (with a scale of charges for 50, 75 and 100 year leases)

On page 11:

Grave Lease Extension

(per 5 years - maximum period not to exceed 100 years)

... Transfer of Rights of Burial

There are fees for

Transfer by production of Probate or Will

Transfer by production of Grant of Letters of Administration

Transfer by form of Assignment or Assent

Transfer by Statutory Declaration (as produced by the Corporation of London)

Transfer by any combination of the above methods

The Corporation of London booklet a choice of graves offers leases up to 100 years. On page 2 it notes

A lease is available for a fixed period of time, during which the owner(s) of the Rights of Burial decide who is buried in that grave. A lease may be 50, 75 or 100 years (depending on the type of grave selected), and it may be possible to extend the lease in 5 year batches up to the maximum 100 years. If the lease expires the Rights of Burial revert to the Corporation of London.

There is no unanimity. Some proprietors refer to "grave owners" in correspondence.

Finally, our own deed reads as follows:

...

CERTIFICATE OF GRANT No. ...

By virtue of ... and other acts in that behalf them enabling to grant exclusive rights of burial the ... in consideration of the sum of ... to us paid by ... of ... DO HEREBY GRANT unto the said ... the exclusive right of burial in the Grave space ... in the ... CEMETERY belonging to ... situated at ... to hold the same to the said ... for the term of 30 years from the date hereof

78.149.116.186 (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

When do the university rankings come out?

I believe the university rankings (specifically QS, times and Shanghai) come out this time of year but I was unable to find an exact date on any of the websites, which I thought was odd since surely they are all a big deal.

I am interested in whether Manchester University has gone up or down in the new 2015/16 ranking, since they staters few years back they wished to make the top 25. Is there anywhere I can find predictions or anything similar. Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.250.82.235 (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

This year's Shanghai rankings came out on August 15th. The organisation's site is here [2]. The University of Manchester is at 41 on the main ranking. More details can be found on the site. --Xuxl (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The Ashley Madison class action and its' particular plaintiff

The recent mass hack of Ashley Madison has resulted in a class action lawsuit being brought in Canada against the site's owners. The plaintiff, however, is apparently a widower (and only joined the site after his wife's passing).

My question is this: When class actions are brought, does the court see things through the eyes of the actual plaintiff(s) bringing the action? Or does the court also consider the sorts of damage done to the "absent parties" on whose behalf the action is brought, even though they are not in any way actively involving themselves in the case (and which the plaintiff himself has not suffered)?

For example, in this case, the plaintiff himself, as a widower, has likely suffered relatively limited damage from the leak. He has no jilted partner. (I stress limited damage - I'm not claiming he has not suffered at all).

On the other hand, thousands of members who are in relationships have likely suffered far more damage from the leak. However, they are not active participants in the case. How would a court go about assessing how much each of these parties should be awarded - through the circumstances of the plaintiff widower? Or through the circumstances of the absent, but far-worse-injured parties? And if it's the latter, wouldn't this require a forbidden degree of speculation on the part of the court of the circumstances of theoretically injured individuals?

(Oh, and the exact situation with the ashley madison case might change - some seriously injured parties might seek to actively join as plaintiffs - but please focus on answering my question, even if this happens.

Also, I am not asking for legal advice as neither I nor any of my friends (to my knowledge) were victims of the leak). 58.164.127.224 (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. For convenience our article is at class action, including a brief section on Canada. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is my quick understanding. First, a lawsuit has to be "certified" to obtain status as a "class action". In that process, it has to be specifically defined "who belongs to that class" (in other words, what are the requirements in order for a person to be considered a part of that class). Hope that helps. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Note that the exact rules on certification for class actions are different from one legal jurisdiction to the next... so we should be careful about giving generic answers. Since this specific suit was filed in Canada, we would have to focus on the rules applicable in Canada. Blueboar (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

If this case instead had been brought in a federal court in the United States, it would be subject to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That rule requires that (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. It is not clear whether the mere fact that another plaintiff might be able to show greater damages would preclude the use of this lead plaintiff on the facts you describe. John M Baker (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

There have been at least five class actions brought in the United States. There is a good discussion of these in an article by the legal writer Alison Frankel, who suggests that fear and anxiety claims won’t hold up unless users can show a “physical manifestation” of the emotional damage they claim, such as a broken marriage or a lost job. John M Baker (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)