Hi again, We've had the discussion about the term 'abandoned cemetery' previously, so I understand how this bothers a lot of people. However, we were talking about 'adverse possession' which is a legal term and so the term 'abandoned cemetery', which is the legal term for a cemetery with no clear title, was used. It is not meant to infer that a cemetery is uncared for. Many cemeteries all over the U.S. are *abandoned* (legal term). This means the owner (if a person) died and did not leave the cemetery to anyone in a will, and the courts did not probate it (give it to someone). Or that the owner (a corporation--nonprofit or otherwise) went belly up and did not *quit claim deed* the cemetery over *legally* to someone else. The cemetery is legally *abandoned*. Andi ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Kimball" <richkmball@hotmail.com> To: <INPCRP-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 10:05 PM Subject: Re: [INPCRP] "Adverse possession" > The term "abandoned cemetery" somehow bothers me. In fact, the definition of > abandoned by the State of Indiana in their code as it refers to property, > etc. and especially by the IDNR with respect to cemeteries, coal mines, oil > wells, etc. bothers me. They seem to believe that if no one is using it or > operating it or tending to it, it is termed abandoned even though there > might be taxes paid on it, bonds covering it or in general an intent to > return to use it. In my opinion, abandon means to walk off and leave it for > someone else's benefit. Hardly the case for a cemetery. Those poor souls who > are buried there did so with eternity in mind and they damn sure aren't > going to walk off and leave it, especially for someone else. That is, if > dead people have rights. We know, on occassion, they do in fact vote. Unlike > personal property, all real property is owned by someone, somewhere, somehow > and the State has procedures for one to transfer or claim that property to > another. The term "no-man's land" is a misnomer. With regard to unattended > cemeteries, there seems to be some confusion between the term abandoned and > neglect. If the bodies are still present, I don't know how it could be > termed abandoned. > Rich Kimball