Texas House Bill HB52

Texas 2013 - 83rd Regular

• Filed: 11/12/12

Caption

Relating to the sale of a cemetery plot; providing penalties; authorizing a fee.

Impact

By amending the existing provisions in the Texas Health and Safety Code, HB52 aims to enhance consumer protection regarding the sale of cemetery plots. It seeks to safeguard the interests of purchasers and beneficiaries of sepulture rights by ensuring that all cemetery brokers are registered and accountable. The new requirements are intended to reduce instances of fraudulent dealings, and mismanagement, thereby fostering a more trustworthy environment for consumers who may be investing in cemetery plots for future use. Additionally, it seeks to bring clarity to the operational procedures surrounding the sale of sepulture rights.

Summary

House Bill 52 addresses the regulation of cemetery brokers in Texas, specifically focusing on the sale and resale of cemetery plots, which includes establishing the definitions and duties of cemetery brokers. The bill expands the obligations for those involved in the cemetery plot market by requiring them to register as cemetery brokers and follow specific procedural guidelines. This involves maintaining records of sales, collecting and remitting fees, and adhering to rules that may be prescribed by the state's Finance Commission. Furthermore, a framework for penalties for non-compliance is established, allowing for significant regulatory oversight of this sector.

Contention

One notable point of contention surrounding HB52 includes resistance from certain stakeholders who view the additional regulations as potentially burdensome. Critics argue that the requirements for registration and adherence to extra rules may restrict access to cemetery plots and lead to potential complications for individuals wishing to sell or transfer their cemetery rights. However, supporters assert that the bill is a necessary measure to ensure ethical conduct and consumer protection in a market that can be vulnerable to exploitation. The debate reflects broader considerations of regulatory practices versus the ease of conducting personal property sales in sensitive contexts.