Judith Taggert v. Our Lady Queen of Heaven Catholic Church

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 04-1331

JUDITH TAGGERT, ET AL.

VERSUS

OUR LADY QUEEN OF HEAVEN CATHOLIC CHURCH, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE

FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 03-3830 HONORABLE ROBERT L. WYATT, DISTRICT JUDGE **********

GLENN B. GREMILLION

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Oswald A. Decuir, Glenn B. Gremillion, and Elizabeth A. Pickett, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

John Franklin McKay McKay Law Firm 7465 Exchange Place Baton Rouge, LA 70806 (225) 924-3641 Counsel for: Plaintiffs/Appellants Judith Taggert Frances Tollenger Gloria Dowiak Margaret Lognion Julie Parker, Indiv. Michael Hamilton

Frederick L. Cappel Raggio, Cappel, Chozen & Berniard 1011 Lakeshore Dr., Suite 500 Lake Charles, LA 70601 (337) 436-9481 Counsel for Defendants/Appellees Catholic Mutual Group Our Lady Queen of Heaven CatholicChurch Roman Catholic Church Diocese ofLake Charles

PER CURIAM.

The trial court granted summary judgment finding that the claims of the

plaintiffs had prescribed against the owners of a cemetery housing the remains of the

plaintiffs’ loved ones after those remains were disturbed or stolen. Louisiana Revised

Statute 8:658 provides that “[n]o action shall lie against any cemetery authority

relating to the remains of any person which have been left in its possession for a

period of one year, unless a written contract has been entered into with the cemetery

authority for the care of such remains.”

When the wording of a revised [statute] is clear and unambiguous, “the letter of it shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.” LSA-R.S. 1:4. Rather, the law must be applied as written, and no further interpretation can be made in search of the intent of the legislature. Elevating Boats, Inc. v. St. Bernard Parish, 2000-3518, p. 18 (La.9/5/01), 795 So.2d 1153, 1166.

Chamblee v. Stalder, 03-61, p. 4 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/7/03), 868 So.2d 88, 90.

The plaintiffs’ action will lie against defendant owners for damages

caused to their loved ones’ remains only if the written contracts between them provide

for the care of the remains. In the absence of such, the plaintiffs had one year from

the date of the internments to file suit. Since the plaintiffs’ suit was filed more than

one year from the dates of the respective internments and no provision exists in their

contracts providing that the cemetery would care for the remains interred, we find that

summary judgment was properly granted. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court

is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.