On the subject of the new requirements for deeds being recorded, here is what I have
encountered in my little corner of the state:
I was told by the County Auditor that he would have his people put labels on the property
cards of the parcels I could prove had graveyards located on them. This would not be
written in stone, but it would alert anyone researching the property such as surveyors and
abstractors and let them know they had to follow the new codes on that property. It would
also tell the auditors office when they pulled that card , which they do before accepting
anything new on the property itself, they would know that the deed had to follow the new
codes.
So I have gone through on my SPARE time and located over 75% of out 155 gravesites on
specific parcels. Of course, some have their own parcel, so they are the easy ones.
Others, such as the Lewelling and Ogilvie families, are merely mentioned in a deed as an
exception, stating in so many words "this deed is for all of the NE¼ of the NE¼
EXCEPT for a ¼ acre for a family graveyard." So for these, the obvious parcel to
mark is the one it sets on, the one whose deed contains the exception, right?
When the deed with the Ogilvie family came through the Auditor's office 2 weeks ago, I
was alerted to it while the attorney who brought it in was still there, but they had
already accepted the deed as it was, so the Auditor listened to my rantings about the laws
and read them himself (as if it was the first time he had ever seen them) and said
he'd have to call the lawyer up and get back with her on it, he agreed that this was
an example of where these new laws were to be effected. I knew she merely went to the 2nd
floor to record it at the Recorders office, so I stopped there and told her the auditor
was looking for her. I should have gone with her, but I'm not good at that, so I went
back to my office and waited 10 minutes before going back to see the recorder. NO SPECIAL
NOTE WAS REQUIRED on this deed and it was recorded AS IS. Apparently I had been wrong.
See (said the attorney), this deed is not for the cemetery, it is for everything EXCEPT
the cemetery!!!
Boy, I sure am stupid to have thought otherwise! So I went down to visit the auditor, who
explained this new law about the recording of deeds to me, and confirmed, through his very
recent interpretation by an impartial attorney, that the deed just recorded was not the
deed to the cemetery, so therefore was not affected by the new laws. I asked the auditor,
if I was suppose to locate these by parcel, what parcel is the cemetery on, he said
"there isn't one". So it doesn't exist?
I said, suppose you & I wanted to go see this cemetery, we would get in a car and
drive out to there. Since this particular one is in the middle of a wooded area back up
off the road, we would first have to stop and ask someone, THIS LANDOWNER, where it was,
get his permission to go there and be given access by car to it, all by him. So in the
REAL WORLD, he OWNS the cemetery.
Just like the Lewelling graves at Shadow Creek Farms, this was a vague reference to a
quarter-acre cemetery. I'm pretty sure from the amount of info on this one that is
less that 7 graves, again like the Lewelling one. The Lewellings were laid side by side
all in 1 row, and when some unofficial initial plans were faxed to me back in October, it
called for a fenced-in line of 10 feet on all sides of the graves, creating a fenced-in
area of less than 1/100th of an acre. In the case of Crossmann and Shadow Creek, that was
my last contact from them, as the individual I was dealing with became upset with me over
the phone and said that they owned ALL of the ground, regardless of the quarter-acre
exception because it was farmed over long ago and taxes were paid on it (in both cases
taxes were never paid on the quarter-acre), he said their lawyer said they had claim to
adverse possession and whatever they fenced in would still be owned by them. I'm
going off on a complete other!
topic here, but this is still up in the air and I don't know what will happen.
I couldn't help but think that if the plan dept lets that happen (let's just say
they do), then the stand that the auditor just took with me over this Ogilvie cemetery is
in contradiction and favors the corporation and developer over a private landowner. He
said that the landowners knew they didn't own that quarter of an acre, even though the
fenced-in area is probably not a full quarter-acre. If Crossmann can claim they own it
all, so should all of these exceptions just be crossed out of all of these deeds, since
the deeds are not for the cemeteries? So they get this ground for free?
I thought I should share my experiences with this with everyone, but I know you all have
met the same brick walls. We are knocking some down, though, and I have a feeling that
2002 will be the year Bartholomew County learns more about the graveyards located here
than they ever wanted to know!
Cris West
Columbus, IN