No final resting place
Lawsuits claim loved-ones’ bodies moved illegally, accuse cemetery of double-selling plots

A grave marker of plastic flowers pokes through the snow at Sunset Memorial Park cemetery on Thursday. The cemetery, as well as Ken Gaze and Associates, are the subject of several lawsuits that allege of improper burial practices. — © 2008 Gallup Independent / Brian Leddy

Copyright © 2008
Gallup Independent
By Elizabeth Hardin-Burrola
Staff writer

First in a two-part series.
GALLUP — Four civil lawsuits winding their way through District Court contain assertions that the remains of at least four local individuals did not find their final resting places when buried at Gallup’s Sunset Memorial Park.

In August 2007, the Independent reported on the first two lawsuits soon after they were filed by attorney William G. Stripp of Ramah. Less than two months later, Stripp filed two more civil complaints on behalf of two more families, with three of the cases involving burials that were done in April 2007. Defendants named in the four cases include Sunset Memorial Park of Gallup, and Kenneth and Jenny Gaze of Gaze and Associates. The Gazes are the current owners of Rollie Mortuary, and according to their attorney, they are in the process of buying or have bought Sunset Memorial Park.

The family of Johnny B. Diaz filed its lawsuit on Aug. 15, 2007. Diaz died April 21, 2007, and was buried on April 27, 2007. See accompanying interview with Diaz’s family for case details.

The family of Joann E. Bailey also filed on Aug. 15, 2007. Bailey died on April 17, 200,7 and was buried on April 21, 2007. Her husband, Ray Dean Bailey, purchased two burial plots, one for his wife and one for himself, but in July 2007 he was informed that the lots had previously been sold to someone else and he had to move his wife’s casket. According to Stripp, a legal standoff has occurred because Ray Dean Bailey has refused to agree to the disinterment and the original purchaser of the plots has refused to allow Joann E. Bailey’s casket to remain in the plot. Stripp said he may amend his civil complaint to include the original owner of the plot in the lawsuit.

Plaintiff Lupe Baca filed her lawsuit on Oct. 1, 2007. After Baca’s husband, Ben R. Baca, died on June 11, 1990, she purchased two burial plots for her husband and herself. During the summer of 2007, she visited her husband’s grave and discovered another person had been buried next to him in her plot. According to Stripp, the family of the person who was buried in Lupe Baca’s space has agreed to move their family member’s body.

The family of Manuel “Tuchie” Baca also filed on Oct. 1, 2007. Baca died on April 5, 2007, and was buried on April 10, 2007. About a week after Memorial Day 2007, Baca’s son was informed that his father had been buried on top of another body in a burial plot that had already been sold to someone else. He was also told his father’s casket would have to be moved. Stripp said the family did not want to move Baca’s casket, but they reluctantly agreed to the disinterment.

Although agreements about disinterment and reinterment have been made in three of the four cases, all the cases are still slated to be scheduled for jury trials because they involve complaints for monetary damages.

When contacted, Gaze declined to comment on the cases, saying that he would let his attorney comment on his behalf. Gaze said he felt the Independent was being given some false information, and he said he was looking forward to the time when all the case facts will comes out.

Gaze would not elaborate on what false information he believes the Independent has received, but he implied it had to do with state legal requirements regarding disinterment and reinterment of bodies.

In the Diaz lawsuit, Stripp claims the defendants unlawfully disinterred and reinterred the body of Johnny B. Diaz without obtaining either a district court order or a permit issued by the state registrar or state medical investigator. Stripp faxed the Independent copies of a New Mexico criminal statute, a civil statute, and an administrative regulation regarding disinterment and reinterment that he believes support his legal position.

“That is not our understanding. We dispute that,” countered Gaze’s attorney, Holly R. Harvey of the Law Offices of Robert Bruce Collins. Harvey declined to discuss specific case details, but she faxed the newspaper a copy of correspondence Gaze’s previous attorney obtained from the New Mexico Department of Health. The handwritten note, from the Vital Records and Health Statistics office, states “if the disinterment and reinterment are in the same cemetery — then we do not require a permit.”

When contacted on Thursday, Mary Anne Escudero, the deputy state registrar in Vital Records and Health Statistics, verified that information. She said disinterment permits were only required for bodies being removed from a cemetery and buried elsewhere. She added the sexton of the cemetery, or record keeper, had to be present to oversee the moving of the body, and written authorization by next of kin was required.

A message left for Tim Stepetic of the New Mexico Office of the Medical Investigator was not immediately returned on Thursday.

The Independent also contacted Santos Molano of the New Mexico Board of Thanatopractice, which is under the state’s Regulation and Licensing Department. Molano said it was a licensing board for funeral homes, and it was not involved with regulations regarding disinterment and reinterment. Nonetheless, the board’s Web site features the following two paragraph description:

“Our function is to regulate the practice of the care and disposition of the dead human body and assure that funeral establishments, direct disposition establishments, and crematories maintain prescribed standards.”

“The primary responsibility and obligation of the Board is to protect the public in the handling and care of the dead, and the sensitivities of those who survive, whether or not they desire rites or ceremonies.”

Because all the plaintiffs are members of Catholic families, Stripp also raised the issue that the disinterment and reinterment violated Catholic religious practices.

The Very Rev. Lawrence J. O’Keefe, rector of Sacred Heart Cathedral, is a former president of the Canon Law Society of America. O’Keefe, who did officiate at Diaz’s funeral Mass, said he didn’t know of any specific section of Catholic canon law that addressed disinterment and reinterment. However, he said, the normal Catholic procedure is that a body should be placed into a “blessed grave,” it should remain where it is buried, and if a body needs to be exhumed, a priest should be present to bless the new grave.

Given Gallup District Court’s upcoming trial schedule, Stripp estimated that the four jury trials would be scheduled next summer or fall.

Harvey, however, left another possible option open. Both sides had participated in settlement discussions, she said, and it was still a possibility that the two could eventually “get on the same page” prior to trial.

Tomorrow: The Diaz family’s story.