Committee advances bill to allow cemeteries to reclaim very old, inactive plots after 100 years

Representative Cleer presented House Bill 13 87 to the Commerce, Small Business and Economic Development committee, saying the measure ‘‘leaves intact the 50 year process and adds [a] 100 year process’’ that would let cemeteries use a streamlined notice and advertising procedure to gain ownership of plots with no activity for a century.

The bill would preserve the current 50-year statutory process for terminating plot rights, and add an alternative where, after 100 years of inactivity, a cemetery need only advertise in the county where the cemetery sits and, if there is no response within the bill’s timeframe (the bill references a 60-day window), the cemetery could claim ownership and resell or otherwise manage the plot. The bill also requires industry-standard practice — such as ground-penetrating radar or carbon testing — when records are lost or damaged to confirm that human remains are not present before any reuse or resale.

‘‘This affects, obviously, very old cemeteries,’’ Cleer said, adding the change could generate funds for maintenance and beautification in places with limited burial activity. Funeral industry advocates urged the committee to act. Trent Hahn, representing the Indiana Funeral Directors Association, told the panel that many Hoosier cemeteries face limited land and rising costs and that the bill ‘‘sets forth a reasonable framework with statutory accountability, allowing cemeteries to efficiently manage their unused cemetery grave space inventory.’’

Members pressed on specific scenarios. Representative Genda explained that decisions about reserving adjacent spouse plots are typically cemetery policy decisions and not created by the statute; cemeteries, Genda said, often reserve adjacent space for family members rather than resell it. Representative Miller raised examples of foreign reuse models such as parts of Switzerland and family-tomb reuse in New Orleans; Cleer and other members said HB 13 87 does not authorize reuse for subsequent burials and is limited to the narrow procedural change described in the bill.

The committee also considered Amendment No. 2, which would have addressed certain municipal permitting issues tied to business transfers, but members held that amendment for further work and did not adopt it during this meeting. Supporters characterized the amendment as intended to prevent municipalities from creating undue burdens at the moment of an ownership transfer, while opponents warned language such as ‘‘not require a new permit that the previous owner was not required to obtain’’ could be overly broad and might have unintended public-safety or code-compliance consequences.

After discussion, the committee took a roll-call do-pass vote on HB 13 87. The motion passed; recorded affirmative responses during the roll call included Representative Kyle Miller, Representative Dan Chester, Representative Voltoff, Representative Genda, Representative Balesworth, Representative Van Adder, Representative Lehman, Representative Roehrige and Representative Borders; two members were recorded as excused. The chair declared the bill passed out of committee and the meeting was adjourned.

The committee’s action sends HB 13 87 forward with a do-pass recommendation; members said they will continue to refine language on the held amendment in subsequent meetings.