Saulia v. Saulia, 25 N.Y.2d 80 (1969)
When interpreting a will devising a family cemetery plot, the court will consider the testator’s intent regarding burial rights of family members, even if the will contains an unqualified devise to a specific individual.
Summary
Neil Saulia sued his stepmother, Concetta Saulia, to establish his right to burial and control burials in his deceased father’s cemetery plot. Charles Saulia, the father, devised the plot to his wife, Concetta. The court addressed whether Neil, as the son, retained burial rights despite the devise to the widow. The Court of Appeals modified the lower court’s order, holding that Neil had a right to be buried in the plot. The court reasoned that Charles’s will, when read in its entirety, did not intend to exclude his son from burial, despite the devise to his wife, Concetta, granting her ownership, possession, care, and control of the plot.
Facts
Charles Saulia purchased a family cemetery plot in 1920. Several family members, including Charles’s first wife, her mother, Charles’s father, and a brother, were interred in the plot. Charles later married Concetta. In his will, Charles devised the cemetery plot to Concetta, his wife, but if she predeceased him, the plot would go to his son, Neil, provided Neil interred Charles’s remains there. Concetta claimed the devise gave her the right to exclude Neil from burial. Neil then brought this action to determine burial rights.
Procedural History
The trial court ruled in favor of Neil, granting him a declaratory judgment establishing his burial rights. The Appellate Division reversed, declaring that Concetta, as the devisee, had the sole power to determine burial rights in the plot. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether a specific devise of a family cemetery plot in a will overrides the statutory burial rights of the testator’s child, granting the devisee the exclusive right to determine who may be buried in the plot.
Holding
No, because the testator’s intent, as gleaned from the entire will, indicated that he did not intend to exclude his son from burial in the family plot, despite granting his wife ownership, possession, care, and control. Therefore, the son retains his right to be buried in the plot.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals focused on discerning the testator’s intent from the will’s language. The court noted that the will referred to a “family plot,” indicating a place for family members, including Neil, to be buried. The alternative devise to Neil suggested that Charles was primarily concerned with the possession, care, and control of the plot, not the exclusion of his son. The court emphasized that the will provision was awkwardly drafted, indicating the testator’s possible unfamiliarity with cemetery law. It quoted from the will, noting that it referred to a “family plot,” identifying it as a place for interment of family members. The court also recognized the distinction between ownership of a cemetery plot and the right to burial within it, and the different levels of control associated with ownership versus the right to determine who is buried there. Citing Membership Corporations Law § 84, the court acknowledged the statutory limitations on an owner’s ability to exclude a spouse or children from burial. The court found that the devise to the widow did not destroy Neil’s pre-existing statutory right to burial. The court stated, “[W]hatever power and rights were conferred by the devise did not include destruction of the statutory right of burial that the son possessed until his father’s death.” As such, the widow retains ownership, possession, care, and control of the plot but the son has a right to be buried in it. The court explicitly stated that because the widow retains ownership, she determines who else can be buried in the plot.