Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cemetery Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Families, residents press council on cemetery dispute as court finds some plaintiffs lacked standing
Summary
Several residents spoke during public comment about a long‑running cemetery dispute. A recent Clay County circuit court ruling found that named individuals did not have legal standing in a property claim, a point city officials reiterated at the meeting while family representatives asked for burial sites to be left undisturbed.
During the Feb. 24 Liberty City Council meeting, residents and family representatives renewed calls related to a multi‑year cemetery dispute and responded to a recent Clay County circuit court ruling that limited who could legally participate in the case.
Giselle Best, speaking during public comment, said she represented families and asked the council to "leave their grave marker alone." She said the families were not claiming ownership of property but wanted descendants' graves and markers respected. "The courts have acknowledged the dead deserve a voice," she said, describing the families' interest as legacy and respect for the deceased.
Dwayne Holdsclaw, a resident who attended many council sessions, urged the city to stop litigating a related re‑assessment suit and warned litigation costs were high. He said the city was spending about $200,000 on the current litigation and asked the council to halt the process if possible.
Mayor Greg Knutson and other city officials responded by summarizing a recent decision from the circuit court of Clay County, which found that several named individuals (identified in the courtroom record as Miss Fest, Mr. Lanks and Mr. Holsclaw) were not parties to the lawsuit and thus did not have standing. Knutson said the court concluded those individuals did not own the property at issue, and he described the repeated claims as having required unnecessary legal work and expense over several years.
The meeting record shows no council vote on property control or cemetery alterations at the Feb. 24 session; residents used the public comment period to press for respect for grave sites and to criticize continuing litigation costs. Council members said they would continue to respond to the court record and to meet with residents where appropriate.
No new council directive or formal action regarding cemetery maintenance or ownership was recorded in the meeting minutes on Feb. 24.
