A family dispute between siblings arose over the circumstances in which an epitaph to their mother had been added to their parents’ gravestone by one of them, their mother's executor. Other siblings petitioned to require the executor to engage in agreeing the epitaph, in default of which agreement the epitaph would be removed.
The owner of a memorial was the person who erected the memorial and, after that person's death, the heir at law of the person commemorated (St Thomas Kilnhurst Churchyard Sheffield 2012). However, the court could order the removal or alteration of a memorial notwithstanding the wishes of the owner of the memorial. In re St Augustine, Droitwitch Spa [2016] ECC Wor 2, the court had explained that although the duty on executors to dispose of the body of the deceased meant that they had the right to decide on the manner of disposal and the place of burial, there was no over-riding legal principle to determine who should have the power to decide as to the manner in which the deceased should be commemorated.
In the present case, the court identified the following as relevant principles and factors:
i. The court would be cautious before ordering the removal of a memorial which had been lawfully installed and which was in otherwise unexceptionable terms.
ii. Where there was a dispute as to wording, the court could decline to choose between competing versions, and authorise a memorial bearing only a record of a deceased's name and dates of birth and death. The court was not, however, confined to that course and could make a determination in favour of one or other of competing proposed inscriptions.
iii. The court should give careful consideration to the views of executors. They had been appointed by the deceased to administer their estate, which may be indicative of where the deceased put their trust, particularly where there had been family conflict.
iv. It was not seemly that the terms of an inscription be a source of conflict or distress. Where compromise was not possible, a bare memorial with names and dates may be appropriate. However, the imposition of a memorial in this form may itself be a source of distress, and might be taken by the parties as an indication of victory or defeat.
The memorial was lawfully installed by the deceased's executors and was in unexceptionable terms; a good reason was therefore needed for its removal. If the court could be confident that the removal would end the family conflict or lead to agreement on a replacement then that would be a good reason. Sadly, that was not the case. The petition would be dismissed. [DW]
