In Bethesda African Cemetery Coalition v. Housing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County, addressing challenges to the sale of burial grounds, the Supreme Court of Maryland held that compliance with the state law statute for such sale was an optional quiet title procedure. Although compliance with the statute was not mandatory, equitable considerations and relief remain. Consequently, the Maryland Court held that extraordinary relief in the form of mandamus to compel compliance with the statute was not appropriate, and remanded the case for the trial court to address the equitable considerations involving the sale of burial grounds.
A copy of the opinion can be found here.
Background:
In the 1960s, a historic African American burial ground was paved over for an apartment complex parking lot without properly relocating the remains. The Housing Opportunities Commission (HOC) acquired the property in 2018 and contracted to sell it to developers in 2021.
A coalition (Coalition) seeking to protect the burial site filed an action for mandamus in the trial court to compel HOC to comply with Md. Code, Business Regulation § 5-505 before selling. The trial court granted such relief, and the HOC appealed. The intermediate appellate court reversed, holding that the compliance with the statute was optional, and the Supreme Court of Maryland granted certiorari.
Discussion:
The Supreme Court addressed two key issues: whether § 5-505 was mandatory and whether mandamus was an appropriate remedy in this case.
Regarding the first issue, the Court determined that § 5-505 was an optional statute that provides a mechanism for selling burial grounds for purposes other than use as a burial site. It allows for the removal of certain restrictions in the chain of title and clears title from potential claims of lot holders. The Court held that while the statute provides a process for court approval, disinterment, and reburial of remains, compliance is not mandatory for selling burial grounds.
As to the second issue, the Court explained that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy used to compel performance of a mandatory duty where the applicant has a clear legal right and no other adequate remedy exists. It is only issued where justice requires a remedy and no specific remedy has been established by law. “Thus, a writ of mandamus will not issue where there is ‘any ordinary adequate legal remedy.’” Op. at 36.
Analyzing the plain language of the statute, its legislative history, and relationship to the common law, the Court determined that the statute provides an optional mechanism to remove restrictions and clear title to burial grounds, but does not abrogate common law protections. In doing so, the Court provided a historical analysis of burial law in the United States, tracing its development after the rejection of ecclesiastical courts. From this analysis, the Maryland Court identified five key principles of the common law of burial places:
The presence of interred remains makes land subject to equity court jurisdiction, which affords the courts authority to protect burial grounds and resolve disputes about them.
The dead generally should not be disturbed without good reason. This principle protects against unnecessary disinterment or desecration.
Land containing remains is freely alienable, and therefore burial grounds can be bought and sold, but such sale does not preclude the court's ability to protect the remains.
Burial grounds can eventually be abandoned. Abandonment can occur through legal processes like eminent domain, by consent, or through neglect and disuse. However, the bar for proving abandonment through neglect is high and often requires showing that the site has lost its identity as a burial ground.
Courts have flexibility to address emerging issues and balance interests, which allows courts to adapt to new situations and balance the needs of the living with respect for the deceased.
Consequently, even without mandatory compliance with § 5-505, the Maryland Court determined that there was an existing legal framework under which the Coalition could potentially seek relief to protect the burial ground. Thus, a mandamus action was not appropriate.
However, the Maryland Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court to allow the Coalition to seek leave to amend its complaint to state a claim for equitable relief under the common law of burial places. The Court emphasized that while § 5-505 is optional, the common law framework provides potential avenues for addressing concerns related to burial grounds.
Two dissenting Justices argued that the statute should be mandatory, not optional, based on its plain language, legislative history, and the overall regulatory scheme for cemeteries in Maryland. They emphasized the statute’s historical role in protecting burial grounds since 1868, particularly those of marginalized communities, and warned that interpreting the statute as optional leaves these sites without adequate protection, undermining the public interest in their preservation.