Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Cemetery Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Liberty council to drop cemetery lawsuit; council cites active litigation
Summary
Multiple residents criticized the city’s ongoing litigation over ownership of a parcel in Fairview Cemetery (Block 174), urging officials to stop the suit; the mayor and council declined to comment on specifics citing active court proceedings and said the matter is before the Clay County Circuit Court.
During the citizen participation portion of the Liberty City Council meeting, residents raised allegations about the city’s ongoing lawsuit concerning ownership of a parcel in Fairview Cemetery identified as Block 174 and asked the council and mayor to stop the litigation and leave family graves undisturbed.
Ted Langston told the council he had been asked by community members to seek clarification about who owns nearby development around the square and asked the mayor to state his ownership interests. Later, Dwayne Holtzclaw said he and family members have graves in privately owned Block 174 and asserted the city had filed a “trespass” (investment) lawsuit to take property that, he said, does not belong to the city. Holtzclaw said the deed is recorded in “book 120, page 36” at the courthouse and claimed the litigation and related hearings have cost taxpayers ‘‘rapidly approaching $200,000’’ and earlier ‘‘well over $100,000.’’ He asked the council to “leave my family's grave alone.”
Mayor Greg Knudson and council members responded that the dispute is subject to active litigation in the Clay County Circuit Court and that it is inappropriate to try legal claims at a council meeting. Knudson said the city instituted the lawsuit about four years earlier “to determine who in fact owns that memorial” and emphasized that a judge and the court process are the proper venue to resolve ownership and related legal questions. The mayor said council members refrain from comment because litigation is active and a judge will decide the matter pursuant to Missouri law.
Speakers representing the public also said professional archaeological and historical work had been submitted as evidence; a resident identified Mark Kelly as an archaeologist and former Kansas Historic Sites board appointee who examined Block 174 and produced reports and depositions. Council members and the mayor did not discuss the substance of the evidence at the meeting, citing ongoing court proceedings.
No council action was taken on the cemetery matter at the meeting; council members said further discussion and decisions belong in court filings rather than the council chamber. The meeting record shows repeated statements that the city will not litigate the dispute outside the courthouse and that the court has previously ruled on related procedural matters.
The city’s next meeting was set for Feb. 24; no council directive to staff or new legal action was recorded on this agenda item during the meeting.
