Title: DeWitt v. Ferries
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 2016AP001765
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: December 27, 2018

2018 WI 117 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2016AP1765 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
Petition for Order Regarding Williams/Jones 
Pioneer Cemetery: 
 
Melvin DeWitt, Donna DeWitt, Darrell Parker, 
Ruth Parker, Merlin Williams, Wanda Williams and 
Phyllis McCoy, 
          Petitioners-Respondents-Petitioners, 
     v. 
Earl G. Ferries and Paulette M. Ferries, 
          Respondents-Co-Appellants, 
Town of Forest, 
          Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
Reported at 378 Wis. 2d 741, 905 N.W.2d 844 
(2017 – unpublished) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
December 27, 2018 
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
      
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
September 25, 2018 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit 
 
COUNTY: 
Vernon 
 
JUDGE: 
Michael J. Rosborough 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
      
 
DISSENTED: 
      
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:          
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
For the petitioners-respondents-petitioners, there were 
briefs filed by Thomas W. Harnisch and Thomas W. Harnisch Law 
Office, Neillsville.  There was an oral argument by Thomas W. 
Harnisch. 
 
For the appellant, there was a brief filed by Joseph P. 
Humphrey and Geier Homar & Roy, LLP, Madison.  There was an oral 
argument by Joseph P. Humphrey. 
 
 
2 
 
For the respondents-co-appellants, there was a brief filed 
by W. Garth Hitselberger and Hitselberger Law Office, LLC, 
Hillsboro.  There was an oral argument by W. Garth Hitselberger. 
 
 
2018 WI 117
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2016AP1765 
(L.C. No. 
2014CV48) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Petition for Order Regarding Williams/Jones 
Pioneer Cemetery: 
 
 
 
Melvin DeWitt, Donna DeWitt, Darrell Parker, 
Ruth Parker, Merlin Williams, Wanda Williams 
and Phyllis McCoy, 
 
          Petitioners-Respondents-Petitioners, 
 
     v. 
 
Earl G. Ferries and Paulette M. Ferries, 
 
          Respondents-Co-Appellants, 
 
Town of Forest, 
 
          Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
DEC 27, 2018 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Affirmed. 
 
¶1 
ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.   The Petitioners, collectively 
the DeWitts, seek to transfer a one-acre parcel of property to 
No. 
2016AP1765 
 
2 
 
the Town of Forest.1  They assert that the parcel is a cemetery 
where they believe their relatives are buried and that the 
parcel is neglected or abandoned.  The circuit court agreed and 
issued an order transferring the one-acre parcel to the Town to 
manage 
as 
a 
town 
cemetery, 
pursuant 
to 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 157.115(1)(c) (2015-16).2 
¶2 
The 
court 
of 
appeals, 
however, 
disagreed. 
 
It 
determined that the DeWitts failed to prove a statutory 
requirement——that "there exists no association or group with 
authority 
to 
transfer 
ownership 
and 
operation 
of 
the 
                                                 
1 The Petitioners are Melvin DeWitt, Donna DeWitt, Darrell 
Parker, Ruth Parker, Merlin Williams, Wanda Williams and Phyllis 
McCoy. 
2 Wisconsin Stat. § 157.115(1)(c) provides: 
Whenever any cemetery in a town is falling into 
disuse, or is abandoned or neglected, and by reason of 
the removal or death of the persons interested in its 
upkeep there exists no association or group with 
authority to transfer ownership and operation of the 
cemetery to the town, the town board, at the expense 
of the town, shall take charge of the cemetery and 
manage and care for it, and if the town board fails to 
take charge of the cemetery, the circuit judge may 
upon petition by 6 or more persons interested in the 
upkeep of the cemetery order its transfer to the town, 
including the transfer of all assets. Cemeteries so 
transferred shall be managed as provided for other 
town cemeteries. 
All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 2015-16 version unless otherwise indicated. 
No. 
2016AP1765 
 
3 
 
cemetery . . . ."3  Finding this failure dispositive, the court 
of appeals reversed the circuit court's order transferring the 
parcel to the Town. 
¶3 
The DeWitts now seek review of the unpublished per 
curiam decision of the court of appeals.  They contend that the 
court of appeals erred because the evidence they presented 
supports the circuit court's conclusion that the parcel meets 
the statutory requirements for the transfer of a cemetery to the 
Town.  The DeWitts further advance that even if the requirements 
of chapter 157 are not met, the one-acre parcel is nevertheless 
a cemetery.  They point to various late-nineteenth-century 
conveyances referring to a "cemetery" on the parcel in support 
of their arguments. 
¶4 
We conclude that the DeWitts failed to prove that this 
parcel is a cemetery.  Therefore, the parcel is not subject to 
the transfer mechanism set forth in Wis. Stat. § 157.115(1)(c), 
which applies only to cemeteries.  Because we determine that 
this parcel is not a cemetery, we need not address whether the 
other requirements set forth in the cemetery transfer statute 
are satisfied here.  Accordingly, we affirm the court of 
appeals. 
                                                 
3 DeWitt v. Ferries, No. 2016AP1765, unpublished slip op., 
¶1 (Wis. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2017) (reversing order of circuit 
court for Vernon County, Michael J. Rosborough, Judge). 
No. 
2016AP1765 
 
4 
 
I 
¶5 
At issue is a one-acre parcel of land located on or 
adjacent to a 204-acre farm owned by Earl and Paulette Ferries 
(the Ferries).4  Earl was born on the farm in 1939, and has lived 
there his entire life.  The farm has been owned by the Ferries 
family for over a century. 
¶6 
Located on a hill, the parcel abuts Wildcat Mountain 
State Park and is separated from the park by a fence.  There are 
no public roads leading to or passing it.  The parcel is 
accessible either by crossing land owned by the Ferries or 
through the state park. 
¶7 
The DeWitts testified that some of their ancestors 
were buried there.  There are no headstones or grave markers 
anywhere on the parcel.  The circuit court found that "the 
[DeWitts] believe that 25-30 bodies were interred" in the parcel 
prior to 1918. 
¶8 
Over the years, the Ferries allowed individuals who 
believed their ancestors were buried in the parcel to access it 
by walking across the Ferries' property, which is a trek of 
about one mile.  The Ferries also fenced off approximately one-
quarter of an acre of the parcel following older fence wires 
that had become intertwined with trees.  Paulette Ferries 
                                                 
4 We observe that the Ferries have asserted an adverse 
possession claim over the parcel, but that no action to quiet 
title appears to have been filed to date.  We do not address the 
merits of the Ferries' adverse possession claim, nor do we make 
any other determinations about the ownership of this parcel. 
No. 
2016AP1765 
 
5 
 
testified that they did so out of respect for those who believed 
their relatives were buried in the parcel and to avoid growing 
crops or grazing cattle within the fenced area.  However, 
Paulette Ferries testified that she never observed any grave 
markers on the parcel during her approximately 50 years of 
familiarity with the property and that she does not believe the 
rumors that any bodies were in fact buried on the parcel. 
¶9 
Several nineteenth-century references to a "cemetery" 
appear in the parcel's chain of title.  Initially, in 1872 the 
United States transferred to Isaac M. Jones 40 acres of land, 
including the parcel at issue. 
¶10 In 1892 Jones and his wife conveyed to Samuel Boyer 
the same "40 acres more or less.  Excepting one acre now used as 
[a] cemetery on the north side of the above described tract of 
land being a part of the same."5  No specific boundary or legal 
description was provided in the Jones-Boyer deed for the one 
acre designated as a "cemetery." 
¶11 The 40 acres were conveyed three more times between 
1892 and 1896, with similar exceptions for "one acre now used as 
[a] cemetery."6  However, a conveyance from 1898 in the chain of 
                                                 
5 The Jones-Boyer deed was dated July 15, 1892, and recorded 
on July 18, 1892. 
6 The additional deeds conveying the 40-acre parcel with an 
exception for "one acre now used as [a] cemetery" consisted of 
the following: 
(continued) 
No. 
2016AP1765 
 
6 
 
title apparently conveyed 100 acres, including the purported 40 
acres, without reference to an exception for a cemetery.7  The 
Ferries farm now includes those 100 acres, with the possible 
exception of the one-acre parcel at issue here. 
¶12 In 1898 Jones and his wife conveyed the one-acre 
parcel to five individuals:  G.M. Carson, J.C. Williams, Wm. 
Downing, David Jones and Edward Carson (the Carsons).  Following 
a legal description of the one-acre parcel,8 the 1898 Jones-
                                                                                                                                                             
- Boyer-Jones deed (dated July 19, 1892, and recorded on July 
25, 1892):  Samuel and Eva Boyer conveyed to Emma Jones 
"forty acres more or less.  Excepting one acre now used as 
[a] cemetery." 
- Jones-Parker deed (dated Sept. 21, 1894, and recorded on 
July 10, 1895):  Isaac and Emma Jones conveyed to John 
Parker a larger tract of 100 acres, "except one acre now 
used for a Cemetery on the above premises."  Those 100 
acres included the "forty acres more or less" described in 
the Boyer-Jones deed of 1892. 
- Parker-William Ferries deed (dated Jan. 17, 1896, and 
recorded on Jan. 18, 1896):  John and Mary Parker conveyed 
to William H. Ferries the same 100 acres, except for "one 
acre now used as [a] cemetery on said premises." 
7 W.H. and Katie J. Ferries conveyed to E.H. Ferries "one 
hundred acres more or less," without reference to an exception 
for a "cemetery."  This conveyance was dated August 3, 1898, and 
recorded on August 4, 1898. 
8 The Ferries assert that "[t]he location of the [p]arcel is 
ambiguous on the face of the first four conveyances to mention 
[a] 'cemetery.'  The description is uncertain and insufficient 
without extrinsic evidence." 
(continued) 
No. 
2016AP1765 
 
7 
 
Carsons warranty deed contains the following language:  "said 
land to be used for a cemetery and burial and no other purpose."9  
It appears that no subsequent conveyance of the specific one-
acre parcel or reference to a "cemetery" appears in the parcel's 
chain of title after the 1898 Jones-Carsons deed. 
¶13 The DeWitts recorded a "Notice" to register the name 
of the parcel as the "Williams/Jones Pioneer Cemetery" with the 
Vernon County Register of Deeds in November 2008.10  A few months 
later, the Ferries filed an affidavit "for the purpose of 
clearing the record title" apparently in an attempt to acquire 
the parcel by adverse possession.  In a letter to the Vernon 
County Register of Deeds dated July 21, 2009, the State 
Historical Society advised that the "Williams-Jones Pioneer 
Cemetery" had been cataloged as a "burial site," pursuant to 
Wis. Stat. § 157.70(2)(a) (Wisconsin's Burial Sites Preservation 
                                                                                                                                                             
We assume without deciding that the references to an 
exception for a "cemetery" in the 1892-1896 conveyances match 
the legal description of the one-acre parcel as described in the 
1898 Jones-Carsons conveyance.  Additionally, we assume without 
deciding that the 1898 Jones-Carsons warranty deed did in fact 
convey the parcel at issue here. 
9 The warranty deed granting the one-acre parcel from Isaac 
M. Jones and his wife Emma Jones to G.W. Carson, J.C. Williams, 
Wm. Downing, David Jones and Edward Carson was dated April 20, 
1898, and recorded on October 7, 1898. 
10 According to the Ferries, the DeWitts invented the name 
"Williams/Jones Pioneer Cemetery" in 2008 and that name did not 
exist before this controversy.  There is nothing in the record 
to substantiate this name with any historical reference prior to 
2008. 
No. 
2016AP1765 
 
8 
 
law).  The letter further informed the Register of certain 
applicable laws and regulations related to burial sites. 
¶14 In March 2014 the DeWitts petitioned the circuit 
court, requesting that it "order the transfer" of the parcel 
"including 
the 
transfer 
of 
all 
other 
related 
[c]emetery 
[a]ssets" to the Town pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 157.115(1)(c).  
The DeWitts asserted in their petition that the parcel is a 
"cemetery" that is neglected or abandoned.  They requested that 
the circuit court order the transfer of the parcel to the Town 
so that it can be managed, possessed and controlled at the 
expense of the Town as provided for other town cemeteries. 
¶15 Without holding an evidentiary hearing or receiving 
additional information on the matter, the circuit court granted 
the DeWitts' petition.  In an order filed on April 8, 2014, it 
ordered that the parcel be "transferred with its Assets, if any, 
to the Town" and that the Town "immediately take the management, 
control 
and 
possession 
of 
this 
neglected 
and 
abandoned 
[c]emetery." 
¶16 The Ferries moved the circuit court to reopen the 
proceedings, asserting that the DeWitts provided insufficient 
notice to the affected persons.  They further argued that the 
DeWitts' 
submissions 
failed 
to 
establish 
the 
statutory 
requirements set forth in Wis. Stat. § 157.115(1)(c). 
¶17 The circuit court orally denied the Ferries' motion to 
reopen, explaining that "the petition was in proper form [and] 
complied with the statute."  It stated that it had not 
"transfer[red] by order anybody's property to anybody else," but 
No. 
2016AP1765 
 
9 
 
rather entered an order "turning [the parcel] over to the 
township.  And what the town then does is up to the town." 
¶18 Meanwhile, the Town did not perform maintenance or 
take any other action on the parcel in response to the circuit 
court's April 2014 order.  According to the Town, it did not act 
due to uncertainty with regard to ownership and possession of 
the parcel.  The Town explains that it attempted, to no avail, 
to secure a guarantee from title insurers that the circuit court 
had transferred title to the parcel to the Town. 
¶19 In February 2016, the DeWitts filed a petition for a 
writ of mandamus, seeking to require the Town to comply with the 
circuit court's April 2014 order.  Specifically, the DeWitts 
petitioned the circuit court to order the Town to "provide 
proper, timely, and permanent care and maintenance" of the 
parcel as a town cemetery.  The Town moved to quash the writ, 
arguing that no final order had been entered in this underlying 
case.  The Ferries intervened. 
¶20 The circuit court orally denied the Town's motion to 
quash the writ.  It then conducted an evidentiary hearing on the 
merits of the DeWitts' writ petition as well as the merits of 
the underlying April 2014 transfer order, over objections by the 
Town and the Ferries.  Following the evidentiary hearing, the 
circuit court ordered briefing on the merits of the petition for 
No. 
2016AP1765 
 
10 
 
a writ of mandamus and on whether the transfer order issued two 
years earlier should be confirmed.11 
¶21 In a final order, the circuit court confirmed the 
transfer of the parcel to the Town pursuant to Wis. Stat. 
§ 157.115(1)(c), but denied the DeWitts' petition for a writ of 
mandamus.  It concluded that the parcel falls within the 
definition 
of 
a 
cemetery 
as 
set 
forth 
in 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 157.061(1p).  In reaching that conclusion, the circuit court 
limited its explanation to the following:  "The conveyance of 
1892 expressly states 'Excepting one acre now used as [a] 
cemetery.'"  The circuit court further determined that all other 
statutory requirements for a court-ordered transfer of the 
parcel pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 157.115(1)(c) were satisfied.  
However, it denied the DeWitts' writ petition, explaining that 
it could not force the Town to act to maintain the cemetery. 
¶22 The Ferries and the Town appealed the part of the 
circuit court's order confirming the April 2014 transfer of the 
parcel to the Town.  The DeWitts did not appeal the denial of 
the petition for a writ of mandamus. 
¶23 In an unpublished per curiam opinion, the court of 
appeals reversed the decision of the circuit court.  DeWitt v. 
Ferries, No. 2016AP1765, unpublished slip op., ¶17 (Wis. Ct. 
App. Oct. 26, 2017).  The court of appeals assumed without 
                                                 
11 The circuit court explained:  "I am, in due course, going 
to issue a written decision covering both of these cases, that 
hopefully will give [] whoever wants to appeal, an appealable 
order . . . ." 
No. 
2016AP1765 
 
11 
 
deciding that the parcel at issue is a cemetery subject to the 
transfer mechanism of Wis. Stat. § 157.115(1)(c).  DeWitt, No. 
2016AP1765, 
unpublished 
slip 
op., 
¶9 
n.3. 
 
However, 
it 
determined that the DeWitts failed to prove, and the circuit 
court failed to make conclusions necessary to satisfy, the 
statutory requirement that "there exists no association or group 
with authority to transfer ownership and operation of the 
cemetery to the town."  DeWitt, No. 2016AP1765, unpublished slip 
op., ¶1.  Accordingly, the court of appeals concluded that the 
circuit court erred in granting the DeWitts' petition to 
transfer the parcel to the Town pursuant to Wis. Stat. 
§ 157.115(1)(c).  DeWitt, No. 2016AP1765, unpublished slip op., 
¶16. 
¶24 The DeWitts petitioned this court for review. 
II  
¶25 We are asked to determine whether the one-acre parcel 
of land is subject to the cemetery transfer mechanism set forth 
in Wis. Stat. § 157.115(1)(c).  To determine whether the 
§ 157.115(1)(c) cemetery transfer mechanism is applicable here, 
we interpret the term "cemetery."  Statutory interpretation 
presents a question of law that this court reviews independently 
of the determinations rendered by the circuit court and court of 
appeals.  Metropolitan Assocs. v. City of Milwaukee, 2018 WI 4, 
¶24, 379 Wis. 2d 141, 905 N.W.2d 784 (citations omitted). 
¶26 Statutory interpretation "begins with the language of 
the statute.  If the meaning of the statute is plain, we 
ordinarily stop the inquiry."  State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit 
No. 
2016AP1765 
 
12 
 
Court for Dane Cty., 2004 WI 58, ¶45, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 
N.W.2d 110 (citations omitted).  "Statutory language is given 
its 
common, 
ordinary, 
and 
accepted 
meaning, 
except 
that 
technical or specially-defined words or phrases are given their 
technical or special definitional meaning."  Id. (citations 
omitted).  "[S]tatutory language is interpreted in the context 
in which it is used; not in isolation but as part of a whole; in 
relation to the language of surrounding or closely-related 
statutes . . . ."  Id., ¶46 (citations omitted). 
¶27 The application of Wis. Stat. § 157.115(1)(c) to the 
facts of this case similarly presents a question of law that 
this court reviews independently, without deference to the 
circuit court or the court of appeals.  Waller v. American 
Transmission Co., LLC, 2013 WI 77, ¶52, 350 Wis. 2d 242, 833 
N.W.2d 764. 
III 
¶28 Assessing whether this one-acre parcel of land is 
subject to the cemetery transfer mechanism set forth in Wis. 
Stat. § 157.115(1)(c) requires us to determine as a threshold 
matter whether the parcel is indeed a cemetery.  Thus we begin 
by setting forth the cemetery transfer statute and then examine 
whether the parcel at issue satisfies the statutory definition 
of a "cemetery." 
¶29 The plain language of Wis. Stat. § 157.115(1)(c) 
indicates that this transfer statute applies only to cemeteries.  
It provides: 
No. 
2016AP1765 
 
13 
 
Whenever any cemetery in a town is falling into 
disuse, or is abandoned or neglected, and by reason of 
the removal or death of the persons interested in its 
upkeep there exists no association or group with 
authority to transfer ownership and operation of the 
cemetery to the town, the town board, at the expense 
of the town, shall take charge of the cemetery and 
manage and care for it, and if the town board fails to 
take charge of the cemetery, the circuit judge may 
upon petition by 6 or more persons interested in the 
upkeep of the cemetery order its transfer to the town, 
including the transfer of all assets. Cemeteries so 
transferred shall be managed as provided for other 
town cemeteries. 
Wis. Stat. § 157.115(1)(c) (emphasis added).  If this parcel is 
not a "cemetery," then the transfer mechanism set forth in 
§ 157.115(1)(c) cannot be invoked. 
¶30 Prior to July 1, 2016, the Wisconsin statutes did not 
provide a definition for a "cemetery."  2015 Wis. Act 237, §§ 6, 
128.  Section 157.061(1p) now defines a "cemetery" as:  "any 
land, including any mausoleum on the land, that is used or 
intended to be used, exclusively for the burial of human 
remains."12 
¶31 To aid in our interpretation of what constitutes a 
cemetery for purposes of the cemetery transfer statute, we look 
                                                 
12 "Burial" 
is 
defined 
as 
"entombment, 
inurnment 
or 
interment."  Wis. Stat. § 157.061(1).  "Human remains" are 
defined as "the body of a deceased individual that is in any 
stage of decomposition or has been cremated."  § 157.061(8).  
Thus, § 157.061(1p) read in conjunction with § 157.061(1) and 
(8) establishes that a cemetery is defined as any land, 
including any mausoleum on the land, that is used or intended to 
be used exclusively for entombment, inurnment or interment of 
the body of a deceased individual that is in any stage of 
decomposition or has been cremated. 
No. 
2016AP1765 
 
14 
 
to the language of surrounding and closely related statutes.  
Kalal, 
271 
Wis. 2d 633, 
¶46 
("[S]tatutory 
language 
is 
interpreted in the context in which it is used; not in isolation 
but as part of a whole; in relation to the language of 
surrounding or closely-related statutes . . . .") (citations 
omitted).  A detailed statutory and regulatory scheme governs 
the formation and administration of cemeteries.  See Wis. Stat. 
§§ 157.061-.65; Wis. Admin. Code CB §§ 1-6. 
¶32 For example, Wis. Stat. § 157.065(1) details what 
entities 
can 
organize 
a 
cemetery 
and 
provides 
for 
the 
recognition of land that was used as a cemetery prior to 1864.  
It provides: 
No cemetery may be used for burials except any of the 
following: 
(a) A cemetery in use on April 4, 1864. 
(b) A cemetery organized and operated by any of 
the following: 
1. A municipality. 
2. A religious association. 
3. A fraternal or benevolent society. 
4. An incorporated college of a religious 
order. 
5. A cemetery association created under s. 
157.062. 
6. A corporation organized under ch. 180 or 
181. 
7. A limited liability company organized 
under ch. 183. 
¶33 Circumscribed by the above formation alternatives, a 
cemetery may not be used for future burials unless it was in use 
on April 4, 1864, or if it is organized and operated by one of 
the 
cemetery 
authorities 
enumerated 
in 
Wis. 
Stat. 
No. 
2016AP1765 
 
15 
 
§ 157.065(1)(b).13  § 157.065(1).  The existing facts of record 
do not satisfy the requirements set forth in § 157.065(1). 
¶34 First, the United States initially transferred the 
parcel in 1872, without reference to a "cemetery."  The earliest 
reference to a "cemetery" located on the parcel did not appear 
in a deed until 1892.  Accordingly, there is no evidence of 
record that the parcel contained a cemetery "in use on April 4, 
1864."  Wis. Stat. § 157.065(1)(a). 
¶35 Second, 
there 
are 
no 
existing 
facts 
of 
record 
indicating that the parcel has been organized or operated as a 
cemetery by a cemetery authority.  Wis. Stat. § 157.065(1)(b).  
The DeWitts do not contend that any entity has or intends to 
"organize or operate" the parcel as a cemetery.14  Thus, the lack 
of compliance with § 157.065(1) indicates that the one-acre 
parcel may not be used for future burials. 
¶36 Additional 
statutory 
requirements 
provide 
further 
support. 
 
Section 
157.062(1) 
describes 
the 
requirements 
necessary to create a cemetery association.  Specifically, at 
least seven residents of the same county are required to form a 
                                                 
13 A "cemetery authority" is defined as "any person who owns 
or operates a cemetery specified in s. 157.065(1)."  Wis. Stat. 
§ 157.061(2). 
14 At oral arguments before this court, counsel for the 
DeWitts conceded that to the DeWitts' knowledge, no cemetery 
authority had ever been formed.  Counsel for the DeWitts further 
indicated that the DeWitts do not seek to form a cemetery 
association because they do not want the responsibility of 
maintaining this parcel as a cemetery.  Instead, the DeWitts 
seek to compel the Town to do so. 
No. 
2016AP1765 
 
16 
 
cemetery association.  Wis. Stat. § 157.062(1).  Once formed, 
cemetery associations must meet annually and elect trustees.  
Id.  With limited exceptions, cemetery associations must 
maintain records of all human remains buried within a cemetery, 
and file annual reports with the cemetery board.  §§ 157.062(5), 
.62, .625; Wis. Admin. Code CB §§ 2.02, .06.  Further, most 
cemetery authorities must either apply to the cemetery board for 
a 
license 
or 
register 
with 
the 
board. 
 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§§ 440.91(1)(a), (1m)(a), (6m). 
¶37 Wisconsin Stat. § 157.07(1) further requires that 
cemetery authorities survey and plat the land, and record the 
maps or plats with the register of deeds.  It provides that 
cemetery authorities "shall cause to be surveyed and platted by 
a professional land surveyor those portions of the lands that 
are from time to time required for burial, into cemetery lots, 
drives, and walks, and record a plat or map of the land in the 
office of the register of deeds."  § 157.07(1).  If the cemetery 
authority fails to record a plat or map, "the plat shall be 
void, and no sale of a cemetery lot . . . may be made before the 
plat is recorded."  § 157.07(4).  There is no evidence in this 
record that a cemetery authority was ever formed, or that it 
platted land or filed a plat or map with the register of deeds. 
¶38 In sum, we conclude that the parcel does not satisfy 
the statutory definition of a "cemetery."  The detailed statutes 
and regulations governing cemeteries indicate that a certain 
degree of formality is required to form a cemetery.  The record 
does not support a determination that any such formalities were 
No. 
2016AP1765 
 
17 
 
met here.  Absent the formation of a cemetery, the cemetery 
transfer statute, Wis. Stat. § 157.115(1)(c), cannot be invoked. 
IV 
¶39 Relying on Wilder v. Evangelical Lutheran Joint Synod 
of Wisconsin & Other States, 200 Wis. 163, 167, 227 N.W. 870 
(1929), the DeWitts advance that even if the requirements of 
chapter 157 are not met, the one-acre parcel is nevertheless a 
cemetery.  They assert that once established, a cemetery does 
not lose its character as a "resting place of the dead" until 
the bodies buried there are exhumed and removed.  See id. at 167 
(citing Kansas City v. Scarritt, 69 S.W. 283, 286 (Mo. 1902)).  
Because there are no existing facts of record that any bodies 
were exhumed or removed from the parcel, the DeWitts argue that 
the parcel retains its character as a "cemetery." 
¶40 According to the DeWitts, language in various late 
nineteenth-century conveyances is sufficient to establish that 
the parcel is a "cemetery."  Specifically, the DeWitts point to 
an 1898 warranty deed conveying the one-acre parcel that 
contained the following description:  "Said land to be used for 
a cemetery and burial and no other purpose."  Several other 
deeds dated between 1892 and 1898 similarly conveyed land with 
an exception for "one acre now used as [a] cemetery." 
¶41 The Ferries and the Town disagree with the DeWitts.  
They assert that not only have the DeWitts failed to establish 
that the parcel meets the current statutory definition of a 
"cemetery," but they also have failed to prove that the parcel 
ever became a "cemetery" in the late nineteenth-century. 
No. 
2016AP1765 
 
18 
 
¶42 The DeWitts' reliance on Wilder is misplaced.  In 
Wilder, a cemetery had been platted and recorded with cemetery 
lots conveyed by warranty deed, but had not been used for 
burials for 36 years.  Id. at 164-65.  A neighboring college 
began encroaching on dilapidated cemetery lands by erecting a 
fence around the cemetery as well as a garage and pergola that 
extended onto the cemetery grounds.  Id. at 165-66.  Relatives 
of decedents buried in the cemetery sought to enjoin the college 
from occupying and trespassing on the cemetery grounds.  Id. at 
164. 
¶43 Wilder concluded in relevant part that the college was 
enjoined from occupying, possessing or trespassing upon the 
cemetery property until the remains of those buried were removed 
from the cemetery.  Id. at 170.  It explained that "[a] cemetery 
is none the less a graveyard because further interments in it 
become impossible.  It only loses its character as a resting 
place of the dead when those already interred are exhumed and 
removed."  Id. at 167 (citing Kansas City, 69 S.W. at 286).  
Accordingly, the Wilder court concluded that: 
Until all remains of their kindred have been removed, 
the . . . relatives of those still buried there, who 
desire to visit and preserve the graves and this small 
cemetery tract from desecration, are entitled to 
invoke the equitable powers of the court to enjoin 
repeated trespasses and unwarrantable disturbances 
upon the cemetery grounds. 
Id. at 168. 
¶44 The DeWitts contend that because there is no evidence 
of record that any buried bodies have been exhumed or removed 
No. 
2016AP1765 
 
19 
 
from the parcel, it therefore retains its character as a 
"resting place of the dead."  However, relevant to the Wilder 
court's determination was the fact that various formalities 
occurred when the cemetery was established.  Specifically, the 
court explained that it was platted and recorded.  Id. at 164.  
Additionally, it observed that the cemetery lots were conveyed 
by warranty deed, which conferred rights on the descendants of 
those buried in the cemetery.  Id. at 164, 166, 169. 
¶45 In spite of the fact that the record here contains no 
evidence that any cemetery lots were conveyed or that any 
formalities were undertaken to establish the parcel as a 
cemetery, the DeWitts nevertheless contend that the stated 
intended use is sufficient to constitute a cemetery.  Yet, they 
provide no authority for their assertion that conveying property 
with the intention that the land be used exclusively for 
cemetery purposes is sufficient to establish that a cemetery has 
been formed. 
¶46 Although there was no statutory definition of a 
"cemetery" in effect in the late nineteenth-century, various 
formalities regarding cemetery formation and management were 
enumerated at that time, as they are today.  See Wis. Stat. ch. 
LIX, §§ 1438-55a (1889) (in effect from October 1, 1889 until 
August 31, 1898).  For example, after purchasing grounds to be 
used as a cemetery, towns were required to survey, divide and 
plat cemetery grounds into lots, enclose the cemetery grounds 
with a suitable fence, and file a map of the cemetery with the 
town clerk.  Wis. Stat. ch. LIX, § 1438 (1889). 
No. 
2016AP1765 
 
20 
 
¶47 The 1889 statutes also set forth formal requirements 
for the formation of cemetery associations, including provisions 
for 
the 
election 
of 
trustees 
and 
incorporation 
of 
the 
association.  See Wis. Stat. ch. LIX, § 1442-1445 (1889).  
Specifically, land acquired by a cemetery association for burial 
purposes: 
 . . . shall be surveyed and divided into lots of such 
size and with such avenues, alleys and walks as the 
trustees may deem proper; and maps of said surveys 
shall be filed and recorded in the office of the 
register of deeds before any lots designated thereon 
can be sold and conveyed by the trustees of such 
association . . . . 
Wis. Stat. ch. LIX, § 1447 (1889). 
¶48 Additionally, the statutes specified that on the first 
day of January of every year the treasurer or financial officer 
of a cemetery corporation, society or association was required 
to file a written report to the judge of the county where the 
cemetery was located, "showing in detail the amount of [] trust 
funds 
and 
property 
which 
has 
been 
received 
by 
said 
corporation . . . ."  Wis. Stat. ch. LIX, § 1447b (1889).  The 
above-mentioned provisions suggest that like today, various 
formalities were required to form and manage a "cemetery" in 
1898. 
¶49 This 
court 
previously 
concluded 
that 
various 
formalities have long been required to form and manage a 
"cemetery."  In Town of Blooming Grove v. Roselawn Memorial Park 
Co., 231 Wis. 492, 493, 286 N.W. 43 (1939), a cemetery 
corporation was organized and incorporated under the Wisconsin 
No. 
2016AP1765 
 
21 
 
statutes for the purposes of establishing a cemetery.  The 
cemetery corporation acquired 25 acres of land for that purpose, 
recorded a cemetery plat, divided the plat into cemetery lots, 
sold many lots, and made various valuable improvements to the 
cemetery land.  Id. at 493-94. 
¶50 However, no burials had yet occurred when the Town of 
Blooming Grove sought to restrain and enjoin the cemetery 
corporation from acquiring additional property to extend the 
cemetery beyond its existing limits.  Id.  According to the 
Town, it did not meet the statutory definition of a cemetery 
"now in use" because no burials had occurred at that point.  Id. 
at 494-96. 
¶51 The Blooming Grove court concluded that the cemetery 
was "now in use" despite the absence of any burials because 25 
cemetery acres had been platted, the plat was approved by the 
town and divided into cemetery lots and blocks, and many lots 
had been sold for burial purposes.  Id. at 496, 499.  It 
explained that "[i]f the legislature had intended that actual 
burial was to be the test, it would no doubt have so stated."  
Id. at 496. 
¶52 Thus, Blooming Grove supports the proposition that 
formality beyond internment of bodies——namely the forming and 
incorporating of a cemetery authority, recording plats, dividing 
those plats into lots, and conveying those lots——is required to 
establish a cemetery.  Id. at 493, 496, 499; see also Highland 
Mem'l Park, Inc. v. City of New Berlin, 67 Wis. 2d 363, 368, 227 
N.W.2d 72 (1975) (relying on Blooming Grove to conclude in 
No. 
2016AP1765 
 
22 
 
relevant part that a cemetery was "now in use" when it had been 
dedicated and platted and burials had occurred). 
¶53 Unlike in Blooming Grove, the DeWitts have failed to 
establish that any formalities were undertaken to form a 
cemetery at any point in time.  Thus, the DeWitts failed to 
establish that this parcel ever became a "cemetery" in the first 
instance. 
¶54 Finally, we observe that although the issue of whether 
this parcel is a "burial site" is not before this court, the 
circuit court made two relevant findings of fact addressing the 
issue.  The circuit found that "[t]he petitioners believe that 
25-30 bodies were interred in the Cemetery before 1918" 
(emphasis added).  It made a further finding that the Vernon 
County Register of Deeds "received a letter from the State 
Historical 
Society 
stating 
that 
the 
Cemetery 
had 
been 
'cataloged,' 
as 
provided 
for 
under 
the 
'Burial 
Sites 
Preservation' law."15 
¶55 Wisconsin's Burial Sites Preservation law is separate 
and distinct from the statutes governing "cemeteries."  Compare 
Wis. Stat. § 157.70 with § 157.061-.65.  Because it has been 
cataloged as a "burial site" by the State Historical Society, 
this parcel is currently governed by the restrictions and 
                                                 
15 The record relied upon by the State Historical Society is 
not in the record in this proceeding. 
No. 
2016AP1765 
 
23 
 
protections provided by Wisconsin's Burial Sites Preservation 
law.16  See Wis. Stat. § 157.70. 
¶56 In sum, we conclude that the DeWitts failed to prove 
that this parcel is a cemetery.  Therefore, the parcel is not 
subject to the transfer mechanism set forth in Wis. Stat. 
§ 157.115(1)(c), which applies only to cemeteries.  Because we 
determine that this parcel is not a cemetery, we need not 
address 
whether 
the 
other 
requirements 
of 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 157.115(1)(c) are satisfied here.  Accordingly, we affirm the 
court of appeals. 
By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is 
affirmed. 
 
 
 
                                                 
16 The Burial Sites Preservation law defines a "burial site" 
as "any place where human remains are buried."  Wis. Stat. 
§ 157.70(1)(b).  "Burial sites" may not be intentionally 
disturbed without a permit issued by the Director of the State 
Historical Society.  §§ 157.70(2r) & (5)(a).  To "disturb" a 
burial site includes "defacing, mutilating, injuring, exposing, 
removing, destroying, desecrating or molesting in any way."  
Wis. Stat. § 157.70(1)(e).  Regulations also provide a mechanism 
for the removal of a site from the catalog of burial sites if 
the Director of the State Historical Society determines that 
there is sufficient evidence indicating that a cataloged site 
does not contain any burials.  Wis. Admin. Code HS § 2.03(6). 
No. 
2016AP1765 
 
 
 
1