Per curiam.
We hold the plaintiff, who purchased a gravesite, only to discover three decades later that the cemetery resold the gravesite and allowed someone else to be buried there, is entitled to the relief provided by Indiana’s wrongful burial statutes—correction of the wrongful burial. The plaintiff was not afforded that relief, so we reverse in part and remand.
….
Indiana’s wrongful burial statutes provide, in relevant part, that a cemetery owner or its agent “is not liable in any action for . . . (1) a burial . . . in the wrong lot, grave, grave space, burial space, crypt, crypt space, or niche[.]” I.C. § 23-14-59-1 (“Section 1(1)”). However, “[w]hen a wrongful burial . . . referred to in section 1(1) . . . occurs, the cemetery owner shall: (1) at the expense of the cemetery owner, correct the wrongful burial . . . as soon as practical after becoming aware of the error[.]” I.C. § 23-14-59-2 (“Section 2”). Section 2 thus “imposes a specific duty upon a cemetery to correct a wrongful burial.” Salyer I, 63 N.E.3d at 1095.
Salyer’s unopposed appellate brief makes a prima facie showing that the trial court clearly erred when concluding she failed to prove a wrongful burial. Most importantly, the court itself found that Johnson was buried in 2013 in the Gravesite, which had been sold to Salyer decades earlier in 1982. App. Vol. 2 at 11. Evidence supporting that finding includes Salyer’s testimony that years after she purchased the Gravesite, she discovered Johnson had been buried there, she had not given permission for anyone to be buried there, and the Cemetery admitted it had sold the Gravesite to the Johnson family and “made a mistake.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 17.
….
Finally, we agree with Judge Kirsch regarding the relief Salyer should receive. Section 2 provides that when a wrongful burial described in Section 1(1) occurs, “the cemetery owner shall . . . correct the wrongful burial . . . after becoming aware of the error[.]” I.C. § 23-14-59-2 (emphasis added). A dictionary published a few years after Section 2 was enacted in 1997 defines the verb “correct” to include “to make right or set right[;] to alter or adjust so as to bring to some standard or required condition.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 259 (10th ed. 2000). Thus, Section 2 requires that a wrongful burial be made right or set right, altered so as to bring it to some required condition. The condition required by our statutes is one in which the burial is no longer “in the wrong lot, grave, grave space, burial space,” etc., I.C. § 23-14-59-1(1). The statutory language cited above does not contemplate a court’s weighing of equities to fashion an alternative form of relief.
Conclusion
The trial court and the Court of Appeals recognized Salyer is entitled to relief. But we agree with Salyer that she is entitled to “correct[ion of] the wrongful burial.” I.C. § 23-14-59-2. Accordingly, while we affirm the denial of damages and attorney’s fees, we reverse in part and remand for the trial court to order the Cemetery to correct the wrongful burial by removing Johnson’s remains from the Gravesite and restoring it for Salyer’s use.
Rush, C.J., and David and Slaughter, JJ., concur.
Massa and Goff, JJ., dissent without opinion.