Texas House Bill HB3231

Texas 2015 - 84th Regular

Caption

Relating to perpetual care cemeteries.

Impact

If enacted, HB3231 would significantly influence existing regulations regarding perpetual care cemeteries, particularly in how financial resources are managed and monitored. The amendments focus on safeguarding the principal of care funds while ensuring they are sufficient to address the care needs of cemeteries. By allowing courts to modify or terminate care funds when they become inadequate, the bill addresses potential risks related to cemetery maintenance, an important aspect of public health and safety regarding burial sites. Furthermore, the bill establishes clear protocols for enforcing compliance with care fund regulations, including civil actions against non-compliant entities.

Summary

HB3231 addresses the management and regulation of perpetual care cemeteries in Texas, amending provisions within the Health and Safety Code. The bill aims to clarify the responsibilities of fund trustees, enhance government oversight, and enable judicial intervention when the funds are deemed inadequate for maintaining cemetery operations. A key feature of the bill is its provision for judicial modification or termination of funds, placing authority in the hands of the commissioner to petition courts under specific circumstances to ensure that cemeteries can meet necessary maintenance and care standards.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB3231 appears generally supportive among legislators and stakeholders who prioritize the upkeep and safety of perpetual care cemeteries. Advocates emphasize the need for stringent oversight to ensure that funds allocated for cemetery maintenance are preserved and effectively utilized. Conversely, some concerns have been raised about the potential implications of increased governmental authority over cemetery fund management, particularly regarding the judicial process involved in fund modifications, which may be seen as a burden by some entities managing these unique assets.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the level of control given to the commissioner and judiciary in managing the perpetual care funds. Critics may argue that allowing amendments to funding management could lead to uncertainty or variances in enforcement among different cemeteries, potentially benefiting larger entities over smaller, community-based operations. Additionally, the legal implications of transferring fund assets highlighted in the bill raise questions about the prioritization of community interests versus centralized regulatory authority, which could either support or complicate the function of local cemetery associations.