Bench & Bar September/October 2026

CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION

POLTERGEIST? WHO WILL AVENGE THE BY NEALY R. WILLIAMS M r. Teague has a dream and a problem. The dream is to develop a 300-acre right. 5 The right gives its holder the exclu sive use of and power to select who will be buried in a lot.

A lot purchaser is entitled to all the remedies afforded to a fee simple owner. 13 Recovery for trespass to a grave includes injunctive relief and damages. A lot purchaser may seek both in a single action. 14 In equity, courts may issue injunctions compelling physical remediation or removal of offend ing objects. 15 Compensatory and punitive damages are also available. Compensatory damages address the mental anguish and emotional distress of a lot purchaser. 16 Punitive damages are available when the disturbance to the grave arises from more than simple carelessness. 17 Poltergeist describes acts to graves that are offensive to the living and the dead. For our case of civil trespass, the only thing missing is a plaintiff. Let us conjure one up. A CASE FOR SALLY Mr. John Doe enters your office and recounts a blockbuster-worthy tale: he pur chased a lot for his late wife, Sally Doe, in the Cuesta Verde Cemetery. 18 The cemetery was later bought by a developer named Mr. Teague. 19 Mr. Teague built a suburb on the property and told John that Sally’s grave had been relocated to the Broxton Memorial Park. 20 John visited Sally’s grave weekly for years before learning that while Sally’s head stone had been relocated, her remains were under a swimming pool. 21 Distraught, John began therapy with Dr. Lesh, a psychologist

cemetery into a suburb. 1 The problem is the cost of relocating the cemetery. Mr. Teague makes an economical and profane decision: he moves the headstones and builds over the unmarked graves. The choice proves penny-wise and pound-foolish when pol tergeists are unleashed. Poltergeist (1982) follows the Freeling family, who live in Mr. Teague’s suburb. Their home is invaded and later destroyed by vengeful ghosts. The ghosts have differ ent motivations for terrorizing the family. 2 For some, the objective is child abduction. For others, the motive is retaliation for the disturbance to their graves. In honor of the spookiest time of year—and continuing legal education—this comment explores civil trespass as a tool to avenge the latter set of poltergeists. A GRAVE LAW PRIMER The ghosts of the movie Poltergeist exist in a “spiritual, earthbound plane.” 3 Graves occupy a similarly liminal space in Ken tucky’s property law canon. Cemeteries are divided into parcels, called lots, and sold to purchasers for use in buri als. Lot purchasers generally own the right to bury in the lot, rather than the lot itself. 4 The right to burial is nevertheless a property

In this corner of the property law canon, practitioners are warned to expect the unexpected. For example, when the right to burial is violated, the lot purchaser is treated as if he owns the lot outright, in fee simple. 6 More particularly, when the right to burial is violated, the lot purchaser is entitled to all the remedies the law would afford him as the fee simple owner of the lot—even against the fee simple owner of the cemetery. CIVIL TRESPASS TO GRAVES Trespass bridges the legal divide between graves and other forms of real estate. In both contexts, trespass covers unlawful entry or interference with someone else’s property. 7 Our courts have recognized trespass against graves in a wide range of circumstances, including when debris was dumped onto a cemetery, rendering graves unidentifiable; 8 when graves were leveled for resale; 9 when a dog was buried in a cemetery for humans; 10 and when remains were secretly disinterred and reburied. 11 Importantly, the conduct does not need to disturb the actual remains; interference with the grave site itself is enough. 12

54 september/october 2026