Thread: Legacy for upkeep of a gravestone. Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027890
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
I'm not sure if this is the right place, but I think it's the best place to ask this question.
I'd guess other churches have been / are in exactly the same position.
In the 1960s, X left a legacy of £(two months average salary) to Y church for the upkeep of the family gravestone. The money was invested, but of course the inflation of the 1970s means that the actual buying power of that initial sum hasn't kept pace, even with interest.
No money has been spent on the upkeep of the gravestone; for the first 30 years no upkeep was needed. The lettering on the gravestone is now becoming illegible in places. However, the legacy probably won't be sufficient to cover the costs of relettering.
What should happen now?
[ 19. May 2014, 06:38: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on
:
Honour the intentions of the legacy and use it to update the tombstone, with any additional funds being supplied by the Church (whether the parish or the wider church structure).
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Thank you.
Around about the same time, Y church was left a much smaller legacy £(two weeks average salary) for the upkeep of a family gravestone. That gravestone is in a more sheltered position and has not required any upkeep to date. I would say it probably won't reach the point of requiring upkeep for another 5 to 10 years. It's clear now that that legacy is too small. What should Y church do with a legacy which they no longer envisage being able to carry out?
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Strikes me the church might want to make a plan about the general upkeep of the graveyard.
Perhaps it would be a reasonable aspiration that gravestones should be easily legible for approximately the period of living memory of and individual - i.e. 70-100 yrs.
That might mean overpainting the lettering once every ten years with black hammerite. Or having some rules about how deep carving is in the first place.
Then you could pool your maintainance legacies to contribute to ongoing cost.
[ 19. May 2014, 07:18: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Then you could pool your maintainance legacies to contribute to ongoing cost.
Y church has 15 of these maintenance legacies, one of which covers the maintenance of four family gravestones. So 19 gravestones in all. The local stone is granite, which does mean that gravestones need little upkeep for the first, say, 30 years. There was always going to be a big gap between the legacy and the fulfillment of the legacy.
If all the maintenance legacies are pooled, and the gravestones most in need of upkeep are professionally maintained now, then the fund is likely to be exhausted before any money is spent on the upkeep of gravestones which are still in good condition.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Strikes me the church might want to make a plan about the general upkeep of the graveyard.
Then you could pool your maintainance legacies to contribute to ongoing cost.
Pooling would probably be a breach of trust, or whatever the equivalent is in Scots law. It certainly would be here.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
I'm fairly sure it would be a breach of trust here, too, though I suspect it depends on the wording of the individual legacies. It occurs to me there might be 15 slightly differently worded legacies here! ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
FWIW, I've been asked to photograph all 19 gravestones for a forthcoming church meeting, so no discussion has yet taken place. However, I was hoping to have some constructive thoughts to offer in addition to the photographs, especially as I'll be the only person at the meeting to have seen all 19 in situ.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Do you need to think of a way for establishing a fund for the upkeep of the graveyard. This would have annual money raised from the congregation and from families who have graves there. The plan would be in future for people to leave a legacy for the general upkeep of the graveyard rather than a specific grave. The present legacies would be treated as supplemental to this.
Jengie
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Jengie Jon, I don't really understand what you mean by "supplemental". NEQ and I are thinking of a bequest that leaves money for the maintenance of the deceased's gravestone - and perhaps of a spouse/partner as well. It would be a breach of trust to use that money for my mother's headstone or grave instead.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Just to add to the complexity, only eight of the gravestones are in the graveyard surrounding the church. Six are in the nearest municipal cemetery, just a short walk from the church. One is in a municipal cemetery four miles away, one in a huge municipal cemetery in the nearest city, one is fifteen miles away, not sure if it's a churchyard or municipal cemetery and two ( ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
) are listed as "location unknown."
Therefore, the issue is with individual gravestones, rather than overall maintenance.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
And, yes, as GeeD says, if the legacy is specifically for the maintenance of an individual gravestone, it's hard to see how it could be argued that the deceased would have been happy for it to be used for someone else's gravestone instead.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
By "supplemental", I simply mean as in addition to basic maintenance for the cemetery with respect to that gravestone.
What made the church take on these gravestones if they are not in their graveyard?
Jengie
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
I assume they were all church members, though I'm a bit mystified by the two furthest ones.
All these legacies are pre-1990, and most quite a bit earlier, so no-one has any clear recollection, or indeed any recollection at all, of the thinking behind them.
[ 19. May 2014, 10:24: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Thanks Jengie Jon, I had misunderstood you to mean supplementing general funds for the cemetery as a whole.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
It might be helpful to use this situation to draw up a general policy, or a general gravestone-legacy document, for the future. While it is unlikely that there will be breach-of-trust legal proceedings,
your diocese (I am assuming that this is an Anglican churchyard, but I could be out to lunch on this-- in any case, I know that some non-episcopal churches have guidelines and procedures for similar situations) almost certainly has dealt with this before. Give the chancellor an opportunity to deliver their ministry!
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
In the 1960s, X left a legacy of £(two months average salary) to Y church for the upkeep of the family gravestone. The money was invested, but of course the inflation of the 1970s means that the actual buying power of that initial sum hasn't kept pace, even with interest.
No money has been spent on the upkeep of the gravestone; for the first 30 years no upkeep was needed. The lettering on the gravestone is now becoming illegible in places. However, the legacy probably won't be sufficient to cover the costs of relettering.
What should happen now?
The trustees should be boiled in oil? Shot in the head? Tarred and feathered? Run out of town on a rail?!
£128 (two months 1965 average salary) invested over 50 years—that's five decades— with all the income and dividends reinvested and there is not enough to cover the costs of relettering?
I'll give you that from 1966 to 1981, stocks lost against inflation. But, that still leaves the 10.5% average annual return for the remaining 33 years.
It boggles the mind.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
It's a Presbyterian church, but I assume that Anglican and Presbyterian differ only in terminology when it comes to legacies for the upkeep of a gravestone.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
In the 1960s, X left a legacy of £(two months average salary) to Y church for the upkeep of the family gravestone. The money was invested, but of course the inflation of the 1970s means that the actual buying power of that initial sum hasn't kept pace, even with interest.
No money has been spent on the upkeep of the gravestone; for the first 30 years no upkeep was needed. The lettering on the gravestone is now becoming illegible in places. However, the legacy probably won't be sufficient to cover the costs of relettering.
What should happen now?
The trustees should be boiled in oil? Shot in the head? Tarred and feathered? Run out of town on a rail?!
£128 (two months 1965 average salary) invested over 50 years—that's five decades— with all the income and dividends reinvested and there is not enough to cover the costs of relettering?
I'll give you that from 1966 to 1981, stocks lost against inflation. But, that still leaves the 10.5% average annual return for the remaining 33 years.
It boggles the mind.
We haven't got any actual quotes for the work yet, but the gravestone in my OP isn't engraved, with the lettering filled in with paint, but has the lettering standing in relief. I am no expert, but I'm guessing that this is a more-expensive-than-usual type of stone to have relettered.
Posted by gog (# 15615) on
:
It might be worth checking the legal position on these, at least in England and Wales the grave stone remain the responsibility of the descendants of those named on the stone (and in part their property). Thus maintenance work may need to be checked with them. However not sure of the position in Scotland as to grave stones.
Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on
:
When a legacy can not be used for its original purpose, it is possible to apply to the Court of Session (that's a civil court in Edinburgh, for those south of the Border and elsewhere) to have the use to which the money can be put broadened, though still in keeping with the original intention. So you might get permission to use the money for helping with another stone, but I don't know if you would want to. After all the general upkeep of the cemetery, whether around the church or not, is the responsibility of the council (Aberdeenshire? Guessing by your name!). You might get permission to use the money to do something like start or add to a book or remembrance, including the name and details on the stone. Just a thought. Or you could use it for a bunch of flowers annually if it really isn't enough to do the lettering!
By the way, ask your local undertakers to recommend you to a stonemason to get a quote. There is no point not having the figures when you go to your meeting!
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
To complicate matters, the Church of Scotland does not own any graveyards, not even the ones that surround a church. Very cannily, we handed the graveyards lock, stock and barrel over to the Local Authorities way back in 1925.
The Local Authorities are responsible for general upkeep, but not for maintaining every individual grave. That is the task of the family. But if a legacy has been left for this, then that would be the task of the trustees - here, your local church. However, your church is not obliged to make up any deficit in the amount required for the relettering. It is not in any sense your grave or your graveyard.
It may well be worth contacting your local council. They have a person in charge of historical sites, and another in charge of graveyards. They should be able to advise at the very least, and may take an interest in the preserving of the graves. Otherwise, any surviving members of the family might be prepared to make up the deficit.
ETA: cross-posted with Cathscats.
[ 19. May 2014, 21:48: Message edited by: Cottontail ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cathscats:
When a legacy can not be used for its original purpose, it is possible to apply to the Court of Session (that's a civil court in Edinburgh, for those south of the Border and elsewhere) to have the use to which the money can be put broadened, though still in keeping with the original intention. So you might get permission to use the money for helping with another stone, but I don't know if you would want to. After all the general upkeep of the cemetery, whether around the church or not, is the responsibility of the council (Aberdeenshire? Guessing by your name!). You might get permission to use the money to do something like start or add to a book or remembrance, including the name and details on the stone. Just a thought. Or you could use it for a bunch of flowers annually if it really isn't enough to do the lettering!
By the way, ask your local undertakers to recommend you to a stonemason to get a quote. There is no point not having the figures when you go to your meeting!
I have no idea about the position in Scotland, but there is a similar provision here and in English law, for the creation of a new scheme - the procedure is called a cy-près application. But it only applies to charitable trusts and I doubt that a trust to maintain a headstone would be called charitable trust.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
If the meney hasn't been used as was intended on grave maintenance, what has actually happened to said money? Is it sitting in the bank or has it been spent by the church on something else? I know of a church that didn't spend money left to it as per the donor's intentions, but spent it on something entirely different without any reference to the donor.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
The money is all sitting in the bank. It hasn't been touched. It has been gaining interest, but the buying power of the money is much less now than it was at the time it was left.
[ 20. May 2014, 15:11: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
In. The. Bank. The Where!?
It's really hard to express Just. How. Wrong. This. Is.
I reiterate my initial remedy for this problem. It's certainly not too late. quote:
The trustees should be boiled in oil. Shot in the head. Tarred and feathered. Run out of town on a rail!¹
Not necessarily in that order.
¹ I hope none of these images is a trigger for anyone.
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
In the 1960s, X left a legacy of £(two months average salary) to Y church for the upkeep of the family gravestone. The money was invested, but of course the inflation of the 1970s means that the actual buying power of that initial sum hasn't kept pace, even with interest.
No money has been spent on the upkeep of the gravestone; for the first 30 years no upkeep was needed. The lettering on the gravestone is now becoming illegible in places. However, the legacy probably won't be sufficient to cover the costs of relettering.
What should happen now?
The trustees should be boiled in oil? Shot in the head? Tarred and feathered? Run out of town on a rail?!
£128 (two months 1965 average salary) invested over 50 years—that's five decades— with all the income and dividends reinvested and there is not enough to cover the costs of relettering?
I'll give you that from 1966 to 1981, stocks lost against inflation. But, that still leaves the 10.5% average annual return for the remaining 33 years.
It boggles the mind.
I can't speak for the New World, but there is no way an investment in a standard building society or bank account would have averaged 10% in the UK over this period. There were points during the 70s and 80s where the lending rate was over 10% but probably not the deposit rate, and not since 1992 has the UK seen interest rates above 10% - over 20 years.
We're also not talking about general consumer inflation, but about the cost of increasingly rare craftspeople. I expect that the cost of engraving a headstone has increased at least as much as average salary (itself well ahead of inflation except during recessions or since 2008 here) and probably more due to scarcity of the skills.
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
In. The. Bank. The Where!?
It's really hard to express Just. How. Wrong. This. Is.
I reiterate my initial remedy for this problem. It's certainly not too late. quote:
The trustees should be boiled in oil. Shot in the head. Tarred and feathered. Run out of town on a rail!¹
Not necessarily in that order.
¹ I hope none of these images is a trigger for anyone.
You have a situation where the capital must not be risked - not a penny. What else is possible? Certainly not stocks and shares, and I guess that the Presbyterians have very firm views on where investments might be made. We're probably only talking a couple of hundred pounds at most: hardly the basis for a major investment fund.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
This is a pretty standard way for ordinary, non-financially-clueful laypeople to handle church monies. Banking they understand (sort of). Investing? Nope.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
Ah, Restricted Bequests. I hate them. They give Trustees and Church Councils nothing but headaches. They are to be avoided at all costs.
IME maintenance bequests are best directed to cemetery authority, not to a church, unless said church has a cemetery.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
there is no way an investment in a standard building society or bank account would have averaged 10% in the UK over this period
Yes. That would be my point. Investment in "a standard building society or bank account" is the height of fiscal and spiritual irresponsibility. quote:
You have a situation where the capital must not be risked - not a penny.
I'm sorry, but all I have to say to that is quote:
But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.
And, we know what happened to that unprofitable servant¹.
Further, let me say: DIT. DIT!!. If you don't have one, you should make one. Here is what the pattern looks like.
Diocesan Investment Trust of the Diocese of New York
Albany Diocese Investment Trust
Trustees of Donations of the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts
Diocesan Investment Trust for the Diocese of Los Angeles
There seem to be others, but you get the point.
The Massachusetts version of this clever idea says that it has been performing this service for just shy of 200 years.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
The links are not helpful for two of these--- I recommend the Massachusetts site for a useful overview of these sorts of things.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
My understanding is money given for a specific purpose is held in trust and may only be used for that purpose. If it will not be used for that purpose (such as because that use has become impossible, which may be the situation here), the money must be returned unless a court directs otherwise.
Are families identifiable to give the money back to? That would be a mess too, which family member gets it?
There's a procedure for basically a money holder dumps the money on a court and lets the court decide who gets it. I would not use the money in any way inconsistent with the original purpose unless a court releases you from that purpose.
Posted by piglet (# 11803) on
:
My "other job" is as Recording Secretary for the local Anglican Cemetery Committee (which administers the maintenance of the two Anglican cemeteries in St. John's). AIUI here, when people pay for a grave, they are paying for the piece of "real estate" which the grave will occupy, but also for "perpetual care", which means that the cemetery staff will right tipped gravestones and make sure that the grave is properly maintained, presumably in perpetuity.
There is a "Perpetual Care Fund", into which a certain amount is paid out of every sale of a plot or columbarium niche.
I don't think it covers replacing worn lettering on gravestones - I'd have to check the Committee's guidelines - but I'd have thought that would have to be covered by the descendants.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
The links are not helpful for two of these--- I recommend the Massachusetts site for a useful overview of these sorts of things.
Augustine the Aleut, thanks for doing the sort of evaluation of the links that I should have done. My main point was "equity investing is essential for long-term endowments." I thought merely point out, "See! All these guys invest in equities and their names are all similar" would be sufficient.
The other useful one is Los Angeles, but the best reading is Massachusetts, which leads directly to this link.
The Albany link to an annual report is dead.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
As far as the return on the bequest is concerned, remember that there may still be a list of authorised trustee investments in your jurisdiction, such as used exist here until 15 years ago. As investment on such a list are super-secure, the rate of return is probably low, as is capital growth.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
This is Trust Law: you should get advice and then either draw up a proposal for the Chancellor of the Diocese to rule on, or go through the business of finding the original heirs and returning the bequests plus the interest.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
This is Trust Law: you should get advice and then either draw up a proposal for the Chancellor of the Diocese to rule on, or go through the business of finding the original heirs and returning the bequests plus the interest.
Given that North East Quine is Scottish and CofS to boot I suspect the "Chancellor of the Diocese" does not exist in this case, let alone is capable of making a ruling.
Jengie
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
And in England, I suspect that it is the Chancery Division of the High Court. NEQ would know, but it's probably the Court of Session in Scotland.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
The links are not helpful for two of these--- I recommend the Massachusetts site for a useful overview of these sorts of things.
Augustine the Aleut, thanks for doing the sort of evaluation of the links that I should have done. My main point was "equity investing is essential for long-term endowments." I thought merely point out, "See! All these guys invest in equities and their names are all similar" would be sufficient.
The other useful one is Los Angeles, but the best reading is Massachusetts, which leads directly to this link.
The Albany link to an annual report is dead.
No trouble-- TEC is a milieu where there is lots of interesting stuff buried in annual reports and things, and I found it a great occasion for procrastination. The Massachusetts document is a model of (relative) clarity and should be emulated by many murky and minimally competent (I used the words with care) diocesan administrations.
If I had any sense when I first saw this thread, I would have quickly seen that this case is in Scotland where there is not only a separate legal system, far from identical to the common law of which I have some knowledge, but there is a great body of established ecclesiastical law in the Church of Scotland. Indeed, a Muslim friend of Natal Indian provenance churned out her doctoral thesis on how the closely related South African legal system dealt with Scottish church affairs and ecclesiastical trusts during a period of Reformed schisms-- I would have given her a call to chat about this but that she gave birth but a week ago and is still recuperating from the experience (a healthy son, for those who might wish to send good wishes) and I suspected might have been preoccupied.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
I've now examined and photographed 14 of the 19.
IMO four need to be relettered, but the legacies attached to them will cover that. No problem there.
One (the one in the OP) had a substantial legacy attached, but is a non-standard gravestone. I'm guessing it will cost more for relettering, and there may not be enough.
Two are fine at the moment, and will be fine for the next five years or so. BUT the legacies attached to them were much smaller, and I can foresee now that in five years time the legacy will be insufficient to do anything. Can we just ignore this and worry about it in five years time?
The rest don't need relettered yet, and their legacies may be enough when the time comes.
One of the ones I haven't yet examined is a mystery. It's described as "Mr Z's parents' gravestone", but there is no gravestone with the surname Z. ( ) So I'm going to have to try to find out what Mr Z's parents names were and take it from there. ( ) Otherwise, who knows what we'll do with that legacy. ( )
Surely other churches have similar issues???
Posted by The Kat in the Hat (# 2557) on
:
Google has not been my friend to confirm this, but I believe Sir Francis Chantrey left £200 to the church and a similar amount to the village of Norton (now in Sheffield), on condition that his grave remains in good order. The church website seems to indicate that this has not been done as well as it might. St James' church, Norton
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0