A Tale of Two Plots (and Four Bodies)
Every deathcare professional understands that even the slightest error in any part of the disposition process — even a misspelled name on an inconsequential form — can tamper with the tender nerves of a grieving family member. So, it stands to reason that a major mistake, like selling a cemetery spot twice, to two different families, can lead to devastating emotional impacts and legal consequences.
A disinterment in Oregon
In a quiet corner of Skyline Memorial Gardens in Portland, Oregon, a grave dispute was recently unearthed. Paula Tin Nyo had chosen a lovely shaded plot for her son Tyber’s memorial vault — holding his baby teeth, locks of hair and a pinch of ashes — after he was killed in 2016. It was a place of stillness and a permanent memorial to the life she had lost. But years later, she learned that the ground she thought was hers had already been spoken for. The cemetery had sold the same parcel twice — first to the Resers, a prominent Oregon family who had reserved that space next to their own son’s grave, and later to Tin Nyo.
The error set off a legal battle that tested the contours of contract law, grief and the sanctity of final resting places. Despite the emotional devastation to Tin Nyo, a Multnomah County jury ultimately sided with the Resers, holding that their original purchase granted them first claim to the burial rights. As a result, Tyber’s vault, along with the basalt bench Tin Nyo had placed in his honor, was ordered to be removed from the cemetery so the Resers could install their own memorial and honor their son as planned.
Arizona’s decision
Meanwhile, hundreds of miles away in Buckeye, Arizona, another burial plot story unfolded, but with a quite different legal outcome. Nancy Marshall had bought a plot in the Louis B. Hazelton Memorial Cemetery — a place where she expected to someday lie between her husband and her mother — only to discover that an unknown body already occupied that space. The city acknowledged the mistake and proposed to remove the remains, but when the matter came before a Maricopa County judge, the ruling took everyone by surprise.
Under Arizona law, only specific family members or those statutorily permitted can authorize disinterment, and that law didn’t anticipate a situation where the identity of the interred is unknown. Without a named next of kin or clear legal authority, the judge concluded that no court had the power to order the disturbed burial moved — even though all parties agreed it was in the wrong plot.
Same problem, but with different circumstances
In Oregon, the legal system treated the cemetery’s double sale as a matter of property rights and contract priority. A jury reaffirmed the primacy of the first purchase, even at the cost of disturbing a grieving parent’s memorial. In Arizona, however, with no statute granting clear authority to disinter an unidentified body, a judge ruled that no one could lawfully move the remains — leaving Marshall’s plot forever (and frustratingly) occupied.
There’s never going to be a “winner” in a situation like this, even when one party receives a judicial warning in their favor. Both families will be emotionally traumatized, and the cemetery or funeral home that allowed the error to occur will bear the blame, being judged in the courtroom and the public stage. While these two situations involved different circumstances — the unidentified body in the Arizona dispute complicating matters and most definitely impacting the outcome — both stories are cautionary tales for today’s deathcare professionals.
