Ted Rial, Clarence Wells, Nancy Myers, William Cook, The Lone Sassafras Cemetery Association, Roger Boykin, Ronald Boykin, and Kathy Boykin v. Betty Boykin, Individually and as Guardian of Anthony Boykin

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
CA05­995  Ted RIAL, Clarence Wells, Nancy Myers, William Cook, The Lone  Sassafras Cemetery Association, Roger Boykin, Ronald Boykin,  and Kathy Boykin v. Betty BOYKIN, Individually and as Guardian  of Anthony Boykin  __ S.W.3d ___  Court of Appeals of Arkansas  Opinion delivered June 21, 2006  1.  PROPERTY, REAL – CEMETERIES – CUSTOM AND USAGE OF PLACING MARKERS WAS SUFFICIENT  TO  PASS  LEGAL TITLE.– The  trial court  erroneously  concluded  that  appellee  had  acquired  ownership of several burial sites by virtue of having purchased them from the Lone Sassafras  Cemetery Association as legal title holder where there was ample evidence that appellants had  followed many years of custom and usage and had established a family burial plot in the Lone  Sassafras Cemetery by placing markers around the plot area, and although appellee denied  any awareness of such markers, the trial court made no finding that the markers did not exist,  but concluded, rather, that the act of marking the plot created no interest in the appellants  because the act was not sufficient to pass legal title, and that legal title was passed to appellee  by virtue of the sale.  2.  PROPERTY, REAL  – CEMETERIES  –  LEGAL TITLE TO  BURIAL SITES WOULD  PASS SUBJECT TO  INTEREST ACQUIRED BY APPELLANTS.– As the appellants had acquired an easement, license,  or privilege to use the burial sites via their clear, albeit informal, establishment of a family  burial  plot  in  accordance  with  the  practices  and  procedures  in  effect  at  the  time,  the ___________________________  ROAF, J. ­ 12  RIAL v. BOYKIN  Cite as 91 Ark. App.  ___ (2006)  Page 2  Association, even if it still held legal title to the sites, could only convey an interest in them  subject to the interest held by appellants; the practical effect, despite the purported sale to  appellee, was that the appellant’s family members (and their heirs) who had marked the sites  retained the exclusive right to burial in them.  Appeal from Drew County Circuit Court; John Lineberger, Judge; reversed and remanded.  John F. Gibson, Jr., for appellants.  Johnson Law Office, LLC, by:  B. Kenneth Johnson, for appellee.  ANDREE LAYTON ROAF, Judge.  This appeal concerns a dispute over fifteen grave sites  located in the Lone Sassafras Cemetery in Drew County. The trial court ruled that appellee  Betty Boykin owned the sites, having purchased them for $100 apiece in 2001 and 2004.  Appellants Ted Rial, Clarence Wells, Nancy Myers, and William Cook, who are members  of the Lone Sassafras Cemetery Association Board, and appellants Roger, Ronald, and Kathy  Boykin,  who assert ownership of the sites, appeal and argue that the trial court erred in  placing ownership in Betty. We agree, and we reverse and remand.  The  ten­acre Lone Sassafras Cemetery has been in existence since approximately  1865, and it is managed by the Lone Sassafras Cemetery Association. Prior to 1999, those  who wished to reserve burial spaces at the cemetery simply staked out the area that they  wanted, free of charge. Appellants’ witnesses testified that, in accordance with this informal  practice, the late Franklin Boykin — brother of appellants Roger and Ronald — marked off  a plot in the 1970s that was large enough to accommodate three rows of ten graves each.  Franklin designated the area, which we will refer to hereafter as the Boykin plot, with crude  markers, which were replaced in the mid­1990s by four corner stones bearing the letter “B.”  Appellee Betty Boykin was married to Roger until 1976 and continued to live with  him until 2000. In 1996 and 1997, the couple lost two sons in separate tragedies — Kerry  as  the  result  of  a  homicide,  and  Andy  as  the  result  of  an  automobile  accident  that  also  claimed the lives of his wife Susan and two of their children. Betty testified that, when Kerry  died in 1996, Franklin insisted that he be buried in the Boykin plot. Eventually, all of the ___________________________  ROAF, J. ­ 12  RIAL v. BOYKIN  Cite as 91 Ark. App.  ___ (2006)  Page 3  1  deceased were buried in three grave sites located in the middle of the plot.  In 1999, the Cemetery Association Board began charging $100 per grave site in an  effort to generate revenue. According to Betty, she wished to purchase grave sites for herself  and her surviving grandchildren, including grandson Anthony Boykin, over whom she was  guardian.  In  October  2001,  she  went  to  Elvin  Funderberg,  the  secretary/treasurer  of  the  Cemetery Association, and purchased nine sites adjacent to those where Kerry, Andy, and  Susan were buried. Mr. Funderberg told Betty that he could not give her a deed to the sites,  but he advised her to have a plat drawn up in order to pinpoint the sites’ location in the  cemetery. Betty then went to Chuck Dearman of the Stephenson­Dearman Funeral Home,  who drew up a plat designating Kerry, Andy, and Susan’s graves as numbers 3, 4, and 5, and  designating the graves purchased by Betty as follows: numbers 1 and 2 to the left of those  (that is, to the south); number 6 to the right of them; and numbers 7 through 12 directly  below them. The plat contained the following language:  This  is  to  certify  that  Betty  Boykin  and  Anthony  Boykin  are  the  owners  of  the  following grave spaces in Lone Sasafras [sic] Cemetery and that the grave spaces  have been paid in full.  After the plat was prepared, Betty took it to Mr. Funderberg, who signed it and gave her a  receipt.  On January 19, 2004, Betty purchased an additional six grave sites on the row directly  above Sites 1 though 6. This sale was executed by Mary Funderberg, who was the Cemetery  Association’s secretary/treasurer at that time. Mrs. Funderberg drew up a plat that reflected  all fifteen spaces that Betty had purchased and signed it as a “Cemetery Official.” According  to Betty, she was unaware of any markers around the spaces she purchased, and neither of  the Funderbergs mentioned  that  anyone else held a claim to the spaces. However, Betty 1  Each of the young children killed in the automobile accident was buried with a  parent, thus necessitating only three graves.  ___________________________  ROAF, J. ­ 12  RIAL v. BOYKIN  Cite as 91 Ark. App.  ___ (2006)  Page 4  acknowledged  that,  around  the  time  of  her  first  son’s  death,  Franklin  told  her  he  had  designated “that side” of the cemetery for the Boykin family.  Sometime after her January 2004 purchase, Betty placed four corner posts around her  sites.  Thereafter,  appellant  Kathy  Boykin  (who  was  married  to  Ronald)  discovered  the  markers and became upset. She claimed that Betty had not only bought specific sites that had  2  been reserved for her and Ronald’s family  but had acquired them in such a manner as to  split the thirty­site Boykin plot in two, with some of the Boykin sites remaining to the south  of Betty’s purchases and others remaining on the north. When cemetery officials learned of  the problem, they sent Betty a letter on April 20, 2004, telling her that all fifteen grave sites  had been “purchased in error.” According to the letter, “Franklin Boykin already designated  nine of them for his family and Ronnie Boykin designated six of them for his family.” The  letter enclosed a $1500 refund and advised Betty to remove her corner posts within fifteen  days. When she did not do so, the Association removed them.  On May 19, 2004, Betty filed suit, asking that she be declared the rightful owner of  the  disputed  grave  sites.  A  bench  trial  was  held  on  December  1,  2004,  and  the  above 2  There was evidence that, at some point, Franklin encouraged Roger and Ronald  to mark off the grave sites that they wanted in the Boykin plot. While Roger did not do  so, witnesses testified that, prior to 1999, Ronald placed corner markers around ten sites  on the bottom row, six of which were bought by Betty.  ___________________________  ROAF, J. ­ 12  RIAL v. BOYKIN  Cite as 91 Ark. App.  ___ (2006)  Page 5  mentioned facts were established through the testimony of Betty and other members of the  Boykin  family.  In  addition,  Board  member  Ted  Rial  testified  concerning  the  operating  procedures of the Cemetery Association. He admitted that the Association had few rules and  had primarily been operated on the “honor system” as far as designating grave sites. When  the Board voted in 1999 to begin charging $100 per site, the cemetery was not platted, so the  Board continued to rely on the marking system. He said that, when Betty purchased her  spaces, they had already been marked for the Boykin family and the Funderbergs should  have gone to the cemetery to see if the sites were marked before selling them to Betty. Yet,  Rial admitted that at the time of Betty’s purchases, the Association had no written records  showing that any other party had an interest in the grave sites. He further testified that, when  the  Funderbergs  signed  the  certificates,  they  had  “authority  to  sell  [the  grave  sites]  and  authority to collect the pay.”  Another Board member, Clarence Wells, testified that the selling of grave sites was  not intended to terminate any claim already established by corner markers. Mary Funderberg  testified, however, that, when the Board members voted to charge $100 per grave site, they  did not discuss the effect that the procedure would have on the sites that had already been  marked. Nevertheless, she said that she had asked Betty whether the sites Betty wanted to  purchase were “owned, marked off, did anybody else have them and she said no.” ___________________________  ROAF, J. ­ 12  RIAL v. BOYKIN  Cite as 91 Ark. App.  ___ (2006)  Page 6  Following the presentation of evidence, the trial  judge found that, at the time the  Association conveyed the fifteen grave sites to Betty, it held title to those sites and, thus,  Betty  legally  purchased  the  sites.  The  judge  also  found  that,  in  those  instances  where  individuals  had  simply  marked  off  grave  sites,  no  money  or  title  changed  hands  “and  therefore ownership of the graves was not legally transferred.” Appellants now appeal from  that ruling.  When a case is tried by a circuit court sitting without a jury, the inquiry on appeal is  whether the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous, or clearly against the preponderance  of the evidence. Brown v. Blake, 86 Ark. App. 107, 161 S.W.3d 298 (2004). Recognition  must be given to the trial judge’s superior opportunity to determine credibility of witnesses  and the weight to be given to their testimony. Id. However, a trial judge’s conclusion of law  is given no deference on appeal. Allen v. Allen, 82 Ark. App. 42, 110 S.W.3d 772 (2003).  Appellants make several arguments for reversal: 1) the transfer of the grave sites to  Betty should have been by deed; 2) the plat certificates given to Betty lacked the necessary  conveyance  language  to  transfer  title;  3)  the  trial  judge  “departed  from  the  rules  and  principles of equity” in stating that the only issue he had to decide was the “legal issue” of  whether  the  Association  owned  the  grave  sites  at  the  time  it  conveyed  them;  4)  the  conveyances to Betty should have been canceled due to mutual mistake; 5) the Boykin family ___________________________  ROAF, J. ­ 12  RIAL v. BOYKIN  Cite as 91 Ark. App.  ___ (2006)  Page 7  acquired an interest in the subject spaces prior to Betty’s purchases. Because we agree with  appellants’ final point, we reverse and remand on that basis without addressing the other  assignments of error.  As one commentator has recognized, the custom of setting aside individual places for  burial may be traced to ancient times, and this long history “bespeaks the special protection  that society has deemed appropriate for these final resting places.” 2 Powell on Real Property  § 18.02[1] at 18­43 (2005). The special consideration accorded burial plots requires that, in  some respects, they not be treated as subject to the laws of ordinary property. 14 AM. JUR.  2D Cemeteries § 31 (2d ed. 2000). In fact, it is generally recognized that the rights of a lot  owner in a cemetery are contractual, 14 C.J.S. Cemeteries § 20 (2006), and that the interest  acquired by the lot owner is considered a privilege, easement, or license. Powell on Real  Property, supra, at § 18.02[2]; 14 C.J.S. Cemeteries § 21. Although Arkansas courts have  not expressly ruled on the manner in which an interest may be established in a burial site,  cases from other jurisdictions recognize as a general proposition that, when a family burial  plot is established, it creates an easement against the fee and, while the naked legal title will  pass, it passes subject to the easement created. See Boyd v. Brabham, 414 So. 2d 931 (Ala.  1982); Aldridge v. Puckett, 278 So. 2d 364 (Ala. 1973); Walker v. Georgia Power Co., 339  S.E.2d 728 (Ga. App. 1986); Heiligman v. Chambers, 338 P.2d 144 (Okla. 1959); In re ___________________________  ROAF, J. ­ 12  RIAL v. BOYKIN  Cite as 91 Ark. App.  ___ (2006)  Page 8  Estate of Harding, 878 A.2d 201 (Vt. 2005). Moreover, the easements and rights vested  survive until the plot is abandoned by the person who established the plot or his heirs, or by  the removal of buried bodies. See Walker, supra; Estate of Harding, supra. The Walker case  also acknowledges that authority exists for the proposition that a place of burial may be  established without written documentation.  Based  on  the  above,  we  believe  the  trial  court  erroneously  concluded  that  Betty  acquired ownership of the sites by virtue of having purchased them from the Association as  legal title holder. There is ample evidence that Franklin Boykin and Ronald Boykin, prior  to 1999, followed many years of custom and usage and established a family burial plot in the  Lone  Sassafras  Cemetery  by  placing markers  around  the  plot  area.  And,  although  Betty  denied any awareness of such markers, the trial court made no finding that the markers did  not exist. Rather, the court concluded that the act of marking the plot created no interest in  the Boykins because the act was not sufficient to pass legal title; and, by the same token, the  court concluded that legal  title  was  passed to Betty by virtue of the sale. However, this  conclusion does not take into account that the Boykins acquired an easement, license, or  privilege to use the burial sites via their clear, albeit informal, establishment of a family  burial plot in accordance with the practices and procedures in effect at the time. Once that  occurred, the Association, even if it still held legal title to the sites, could only convey an ___________________________  ROAF, J. ­ 12  RIAL v. BOYKIN  Cite as 91 Ark. App.  ___ (2006)  Page 9  interest in them subject to the Boykins’. The practical effect is, despite the purported sale to  Betty,  the  Boykin  family  members  (and  their  heirs)  who  marked  the  sites  retained  the  exclusive right to burial in them.  In light of the foregoing, we reverse and remand with directions to enter an order  consistent with this opinion.  GLOVER and NEAL, JJ., agree. ___________________________  ROAF, J. ­ 12 

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.