Antioch St. Johns Cemetery Company D/B/A American Memorial Park, Grand Prairie, Texas Gerald Weatherall And Beverly Randall-Weatherall v. Texas Department of Banking Commissioner ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
03-15-00341-CV
7260424
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
10/6/2015 8:57:09 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
CLERK
FILED IN
3rd COURT OF APPEALS
03-15-00341-CV AUSTIN, TEXAS
10/7/2015 4:41:09 PM
IN THE JEFFREY D. KYLE
THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS Clerk
AUSTIN, TEXAS
__________________________________________________________________
Antioch St. Johns Cemetery Company d/b/a American Memorial Park, Grand Prairie, Texas;
Gerald Weatherall; and Beverly Randall-Weatherall
Appellants
v.
Texas Department of Banking Commissioner
Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 261st Judicial District Court,
Travis County, Texas
_______________________________________________________________
BRIEF OF APPELLANTS
ANTIOCH ST. JOHNS CEMETERY, GERALD WEATHERALL, AND BEVERLY
RANDALL-WEATHERALL
__________________________________________________________________
Kevin S. Wiley, Jr.
LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN S. WILEY, JR.
325 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 4400
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: (469) 619-5721
Telecopier: (469) 619-5725
Email: kevinwiley@lkswjr.com
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS
APPELLANTS INDEX
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS
Appellants hereby certify the following constitutes a list of interested persons who are
financially interested to the outcome of the appeal:
1) Antioch St. Johns Cemetery d/b/a Memorial Park Cemetery – Appellant
Kevin S. Wiley, Jr.
325 North St. Paul Street, Suite 4400
Dallas, TX 75201
Counsel for Appellant
2) Gerald Weatherall
Kevin S. Wiley, Jr.
325 North St. Paul Street, Suite 4400
Dallas, TX 75201
Counsel for Appellant
3) Beverly Randall-Weatherall
Kevin S. Wiley, Jr.
325 North St. Paul Street, Suite 4400
Dallas, TX 75201
Counsel for Appellant
4) Texas Department of Banking
Ann Hartley
Assistant Attorney General
General Litigation Division
Office of the Attorney General of Texas
P.O. Box 12548
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
Counsel for Appellee
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .....................................................................................................iii
RECORD AND PARTY REFERENCES ................................................................................. 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................................................. 1
ISSUE PRESENTED ................................................................................................................ 1
Whether the trial court erred in deciding that the Administrative Law Judge’s
findings of fact and conclusions of law and penalties assessed against the
Appellants for violations of the Texas Health and Safety Code were warranted with
the facts submitted to the ALJ during a contested case hearing.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND …………………………………………………………………… 2
ARGUMENT …………………………………………………………………………………. 3
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER ……………………………………………………………. 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ……………………………………………………………….…8
ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases:
Castleberry v Branscomb
721 S.W.2d 270 (Tex. 1986)……………………………………………………………… 7
R.R. Com'n of Texas v. Torch Operating Co.,
912 S.W.2d 790, 792 (Tex.1995)…………………………………………………………. 4
Texas Health Facilities Com'n v. Charter Medical-Dallas, Inc.,
665 S.W.2d 446, 452 (Tex.1984)…………………………………………………………. 4
Statute:
Texas Government Code § 2001.174 …....................………………….....………………… 3
Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 2001.174(2)(E)....................………………….....………………... 4
Texas Health & Safety Code § 711.003……………………………………………………. 5
Texas Health and Safety Code § 711.021…………………………………………………. 6
iii
RECORD AND PARTY REFERENCES
Appellants Antioch St. Johns Cemetery Company d/b/a American Memorial
Park, Grand Prairie, Texas, Gerald Weatherall and Beverly Randall-Weatherall file
this, its Brief of Appellants. Antioch St. Johns Cemetery Company d/b/a American
Memorial Park, Grand Prairie, Texas, Gerald Weatherall and Beverly Randall-
Weatherall will be referred to as “Appellants.”
Appellee, the Texas Department of Banking will be referred to as the
“Appellee.”
The clerk’s record is volume 1-3. References in the Brief of Appellants to the
clerk’s records are shown as the Banking of Department page numbers to Volume 3
of the Clerk’s Record: “[DB ___]” with the page number(s) in the brackets.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case involves Appellant seeking redress for fees and fines imposed by
the Appellee beyond the legal and factual parameters promulgated by the State of
Texas.
ISSUE PRESENTED
Whether the trial court erred in deciding that the Administrative Law Judge’s
findings of fact and conclusions of law and penalties assessed against the Appellants
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF PAGE - 1
for violations of the Texas Health and Safety Code were warranted with the facts
submitted to the ALJ during a contested case hearing.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Appellant Antioch St. Johns Cemetery Company d/b/a American Memorial
Park, Grand Prairie, Texas (“St. Johns”) is an entity operating in the State of Texas as
cemetery facility. Appellants Gerald Weatherall, performed his duties as St. Johns’
President, and Appellant, Beverly Randall-Weatherall, was its Vice-President.
Appellee is an agency promulgated by the Texas Finance Code in and for the
State of Texas that administers the operations of cemeteries under the provisions of the
Texas Health & Safety Code.
On November 25, 2013, the Texas Banking Commission submitted findings of
fact that assessed administrative penalties against Appellants, Gerald Weatherall and
Beverly Randall-Weatherall as responsible parties operating the St. Johns cemetery.
Gerald Weatherall and Beverly Randall-Weatherall were aggrieved by the
Decision rendered by the Texas Banking Commissioner in that the Decision was in
error and was not supported by the evidence. Specifically, Gerald Weatherall and
Beverly Randall-Weatherall showed that the Texas Banking Commissioner that they
should not have had penalties imposed against them since the evidence showed that
they timely ameliorated any financial discrepancies under Texas Administrative
Code § 26.2.
Gerald Weatherall and Beverly Randall-Weatherall also showed that
corrective action was taken in compliance with the Reports for Examination and
audits that occurred on June 20, 2011 and June 30, 2011 to correct the defective
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF PAGE - 2
condition of the cemetery plots. Appellants further disputed the decision of the
Texas Banking Commissioner which affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s
Opinion and Order as it pertains to the sufficiency of the evidence, findings of fact,
and conclusions of law.
Appellants asserts that the Decision of the Texas Banking Commissioner is
not supported by the evidence and is against the overwhelming weight of the
evidence as to be clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. For this, they appealed the
Judicial Review of same to the 261st Judicial District of Tarrant County, Texas. Upon
the judicial review, Gerald Weatherall and Beverly Randall-Weatherall requested that
the administrative penalties assessed against them in their individual capacities be
denied. However, the trial court found that the penalties imposed by the ALJ were
within the scope of penalties awarded for such violations.
II. ARGUMENT
Texas Government Code § 2001.174 provides the scope of judicial review
from an agency decision. The code states in pertinent part:
If the law authorizes review of a decision in a contested case under the
substantial evidence rule or if the law does not define the scope of
judicial review, a court may not substitute its judgment for the judgment
of the state agency on the weight of the evidence on questions
committed to agency discretion but:
(1) may affirm the agency decision in whole or in part; and
(2) shall reverse or remand the case for further proceedings if
substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the
administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:
(A) in violation of a constitutional or statutory provision;
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF PAGE - 3
(B) in excess of the agency's statutory authority;
(C) made through unlawful procedure;
(D) affected by other error of law;
(E) not reasonably supported by substantial evidence
considering the reliable and probative evidence in the record as
a whole; or
(F) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion
or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.
Additionally, the Texas Administrative Procedure Act (APA) authorizes a
reviewing court to test an agency's findings, inferences, conclusions, and decisions
to determine whether they are reasonably supported by substantial evidence
considering the reliable and probative evidence in the record as a whole. See Tex.
Gov't Code Ann. § 2001.174(2)(E) (Vernon Pamph.1998);  Texas Health Facilities
Com'n v. Charter Medical-Dallas, Inc., 665 S.W.2d 446, 452 (Tex.1984). The
reviewing court must presume that the agency's decision is supported by substantial
evidence. See Charter Medical-Dallas, Inc., 665 S.W.2d at 453. Substantial
evidence requires only more than a mere scintilla. See R.R. Com'n of Texas v. Torch
Operating Co., 912 S.W.2d 790, 792 (Tex.1995).
In this case, the findings of fact by the ALJ were completely contradictory. At
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF PAGE - 4
some points in his decision, he states the Mr. and Mrs. Weatherall addressed the
agencies concerns regarding the violations of Texas Health & Safety Code §
711.003, or were ignorant of the law regarding the violations of the Health & Safety
Code. [DB 420 paragraph 39]. However, within the same opinion, the ALJ found
that despite the efforts of Mr. and Mrs. Weatherall, the violations were so numerous
that same showed a “willful disregard for the law that applies to perpetual care
cemeteries.” [See DB 420; par. 38]. For these reasons, Mr. and Mrs. Weatherall
contend that the ALJ opinion is arbitrary and capricious in that same observes that
best efforts were made by Mr. and Mrs. Weatherall to correct the violations of the
Texas Health & Safety Code. The testimonial evidence from Mr. Weatherall also
supports that he repaid the perpetual cemetery trust fund which was a point of
contention brought by the Banking Commission. However, the ALJ states that due
to the number of violations, Mr. and Mrs. Weatherall’s conduct was “willful” despite
any evidence or testimony indicating that the conduct was “willful.” Accordingly
the findings of the ALJ are not supported by the evidence. The Trial Court heard and
reviewed this evidence and contradictory conclusions of the ALJ, but ignored same
in upholding the ALJ opnion.
In addition to the foregoing, Appellant’s contend that the ALJ and Trial Court
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF PAGE - 5
committed an error on the law in assessing penalties against Mr. and Mrs. Weatherall
in their individual capacities.
Texas Health and Safety Code § 711.021 provides that a cemetery can be
operated by a person that is a corporate entity. This section states in pertinent part:
(a) An individual, corporation, partnership, firm, trust, or association
may not engage in a business for cemetery purposes in this state unless
the person is a corporation organized for those purposes.
(b) A corporation conducting a business for cemetery purposes,
including the sale of plots, may be formed only as provided by this
section.
The corporation must be a filing entity or foreign filing entity, as
those terms are defined by Section 1.002, Business Organizations
Code.
8. In Texas, a shareholder’s personal liability for obligations of a Texas
corporation is governed by Article 2.21 of the Texas Business Corporation Act [or
Sections 21.223, 21.224, and 21.225 of the Texas Business Organizations Code,
where that Code is applicable] (“Article 2.21”). Article 2.21 now provides that no
personal liability for contractual obligations exists unless the plaintiff can
demonstrate that the shareholder, owner, subscriber, or affiliate caused the
corporation to be used for the purpose of perpetrating and did perpetrate an actual
fraud on the plaintiff primarily for the direct personal benefit of the shareholder,
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF PAGE - 6
owner, subscriber, or affiliate. See Castleberry v Branscomb 721 S.W.2d 270 (Tex.
1986).
Mr. and Mrs. Weatherall are shielded by the existence of St. Johns as a
corporate entity unless it is found that the corporation has been used to perpetuate a
fraud. Id. There was no evidence adduced in the contested hearing that Mr. and Mrs.
Weatherall utilized to perpetuate a fraud. As a result, they cannot be assessed
personally for the fines assessed against the corporate entity.
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
By ALJ’s assessment of fines and penalties against Appellant’s Gerald and
Beverly-Randall Weatherall, the trial court committed clear error. For these reasons,
the Order upholding the fines and assessment of penalties against the Appellants
should be overturned in this case and the matter remanded for rehearing on the
merits.
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF PAGE - 7
Respectfully submitted
LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN S. WILEY, JR.
_______________________________
Kevin S. Wiley, Jr.
State Bar of Texas # 24029902
325 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 4400
Dallas, TX 75201
Tel. (469) 619-5721
Fax (469) 619-5725
Email: kevinwiley@lkswjr.com
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)(3), I hereby certify that this brief contains
2888 words. This is a computer-generated document created in Microsoft Word,
using 14-point typeface for all text. In making this certificate of compliance, I am
relying on the word count provided by the software used to prepare the document.
___________________________
Kevin S. Wiley, Jr.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Appellant Brief has been served
on the Banking Commission by and through their counsel of record below on this
1st day of October, 2015 via electronic mail to the parties listed below.
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF PAGE - 8
Ann Hartley
Assistant General Counsel
Texas Department of Banking
2601 N. Lamar Blvd.
Austin, Texas 78705
/s/ Kevin S. Wiley, Jr.
APPELLANTS’ BRIEF PAGE - 9
APPELLANT APPENDIX
TAB 1 - Proposal For Decision Following Exceptions and Final Order [DB 399-430]
TAB - 1
BANKING DEPT
399
/"**\
Docket No. BE-13-11-326
IN THE MATTER OF ANTIOCH § BEFORE THE BANKING
ST. JAMES CEMETERY COMPANY §
d/b/a AMERICAN MEMORIAL PARK, §
GRAND PRAIRIE, TEXAS, (Certificate §
of Authority No. 74, expired); §
§
GERALD WEATHERALL, ST. AS ITS § COMMISSIONER OF TEXAS
PRESIDENT AND IN HIS INDIVIDUAL §
CAPACITY; AND, §
§
BEVERLY RANDALL-WEATHERALL §
AS ITS VICE-PRESIDENT § AUSTIN, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS
ThisProposal for Decision Following Exceptions is issued following consideration of
the record consisting of testimony, documentary evidence, andargument ofthe parties, which
were received at a contested casehearing onJune 10,2013, andExceptions to theProposal
for Decision that were filed on October 7,2013.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an enforcement action involving a perpetual care cemetery, which staffof the
Department ofBanking initiated against the respondents: Antioch St. James Cemetery
Company d/b/a American Memorial Park, Grand Prairie, Texas; Gerald Weatherall, Sr., as its
President and individually; and, Beverly Randall-Weatherall as its Vice-President Staff
alleges that the respondents violated provisions ofthe Texas Health and Safety Code,
Chapters 711 and 712, and Texas Finance Commission Rules, 7Tex. Admin. Code Chapter
26; and, of Commissioner Order 2012-011, signed onMay16,2012. Staffseeks
administrative penalties against the company, Mr. Weatherall in his capacity as president and
BANKING DEPT
/in
00
his individual capacity, and against Ms. Randall-Weatherall in her capacity as vice-president
ofthe company. Antioch St. James Cemetery Company d/b/a American Memorial Park will
be referred to as the "Cemetery Company." References to the transcript ofthe contested case
hearing will be "[TR (page number)]."
Charges of Violations
The department staff charged the respondents with up to fifteen types of violations
involvingten separate Health and SafetyCode provisions and five Finance Commission
Rules,with failure to complywith and violations of anEmergency Order To Cease and Desist
that is dated May 16,2012, and with operating a perpetual care cemetery without a certificate
of authority. Department staff argued that the respondents' actions established apattern of
wilful disregard for the requirements oflaw concerning operation ofthe Cemetery Company,
within the meaning ofHealth Code §§711.056 and 712.0442, and that the Commissioner
should impose administrative penalties and costs of thisproceeding against all the
respondents, jointly.and severally. The specific violations with corresponding provisions of
the Health and Safety Code, the Finance Commission Rules, and the Cease and Desist Order,
are set forth intheNotice of Hearing that was signed on May 2,2013.
DISCUSSION
Appearances
Department staff, represented by Deborah H. Loomis, Assistant General Counsel,
presented evidence of violations with testimony from MarkE. LaPlante and Russell Reese and
with documents, including Reports ofExamination from 2010,2011, and 1012; spreadsheets
showing information from operations ofthe cemetery; records conceming four complaints
DOB Docket 13-11-326
Antioch St James Cemetery Company, et al.
Proposal for Decision Following Exceptions Page 2
BANKING DEPT
401
from 2011 and 2012; and, other correspondence. Ultimately, the staffrecommended the
imposition ofadministrative penalties within a range between $56,000 and $70,000 for
fourteen violations. [TR 91-92].
Mr. Gerald D. Weatherall, Sr., appeared for the Cemetery Company, as former
president ofthe company, and for himselfindividually. Mr. Weatherall also owns and
operates the Eternal Rest Funeral Home that islocated inPiano, Texas. [TR 108; DOB
Exhibit 1, p. 47]. Ms. Weatherall appeared as former vice-president ofthe Cemetery
Company. Mr. Weatherall presented evidence in the form oftestimony and documents. He
declined to offer an original plat ofthe cemetery, which included what appeared to be anewer
depiction ofSection Jthat was taped over the original version on that plat. In general, Mr.
Weatherall testified about his efforts to address the violations after receiving notifications
from the Department He testified that they hired aman to run the cemetery and contract
workers and that the only time he got involved was at the inspections. [TR 100,101 ]. Mr.
Weatherall testified that Ms. Randall-Weatherall did not participate in any ofthe operations of
the Cemetery Company and should not be held responsible for any ofthe violations. Mr.
Weatherall felt that he tried to do everything that the Department asked them to do. He
testified that once he found out they were not equipped to handle acemetery, they put it into
Chapter 7 bankruptcy, terminated the company's corporate charter, and lost title to the
cemetery propertythrough foreclosure.
The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Mr. Weatherall is responsible for
violations ofthe law and recommends assessment ofan administrative penalty against himi as
president ofthe cemetery company and individually, and against the cemetery company, as set
#^
forth in the recommendation that follows.
DOB Docket 13-11-326
Antioch St James Cemetery Company, etal.
Proposal for Decision Following Exceptions paffe o
BANKING DEPT
402
/$^v
Applicable Law
Pertinent law for the regulation of perpetual care cemeteries is found inthe Health and
Safety Code, Chapters 711 and 712, and Finance Commission Rules: Title 7, Part 2, Chapter
26 ofthe Texas Administrative Code. The applicable provisions are set out in detail in the
Notice of Hearing, appear inthe Emergency Cease and Desist Order, and will beset forth in
the Conclusions of Law conceming each asserted violation.
Discussion of the Evidence
The Cemetery, the Cemetery Company and the Weatheralls' Ownership
This matter involves acemetery that at least apart ofwhich, named Antioch Cemetery,
was dedicated in 1896. [Weatherall Exhibit 3J. The property is located between Avenue D
and Hardy Road in Grand Prairie, Dallas County, Texas. The record shows that the cemetery
property was not owned by theCemetery Company.
The Cemetery Company was organized as acorporation beginning in 1952. [TR 111].
Mr. Weatherall was president and adirector ofthe corporation and Ms. Randall-Weatherall
was vice-president and adirector ofthe corporation. The Secretary ofState forfeited the
corporate charter in early 2011 for failure to pay franchise taxes and reinstated the charter by
November, 2011, after payment was made. At some time in 2012, the respondents terminated
or dissolved the corporation through the Secretary ofState, after the bankruptcy filing and
forfeiture ofthe cemetery property. [TR 110].
On June 3,2009, Mr. Gerald Weatherall, Sr., and Ms. Beverly Ann Randall-
Weatherall purchased the cemetery property and the cemetery company from Mr. Robert
Wright and Mr. Ray Windham. [TR 11]. The records for the purchase and change of
DOB Docket 13-11-326
Antioch St. James Cemetery Company, etal.
Proposal for Decision Following Exceptions
Page 4
BANKING DEPT
403
ownership ofthe cemetery company and Certificate of Authority No. 74, including the
documentation thatthe respondents filed withtheDepartment, showed 50% ownership by
Weatherall Family Funeral Service, LLC, and 50% ownership by Beverly-Randall Weatherall.
At the time ofthe 2011 examination, Mr. Weatherall reported that he owned 50% ofthe
cemetery property and company,but documentation ofthat was not provided. [TR 32]. The
information required to complete a changeof ownership was submitted to the Department,
which recorded the change of ownership and ofCertificateof Authority No. 74 on or about
December 21,2009. [Id.]. At some time after the February 7,2012, Report of Examination,
the Cemetery Company filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 and the bankruptcy proceedings
ended with the Cemetery Company being converted b ack to the respondents,becausethere
were no assets to sell. Also after February 7,2012, the respondents transferredtitle to the
property on which the cemetery is located by deed in lieu of foreclosure to Avery Weatherall,
Gerald Weatherall, Sr.'s son. Avery Weatherall lent the money for the Weatheralls' purchase
ofthe propertyin 2009.
Overview ofthe Asserted Violations
The focus ofthis proceeding was directed to the general condition ofthe cemetery
grounds, the record-keeping, and the maintenance ofthe Perpetual Care Trust Fund ("PCTF")
by the cemetery company, and the operations within two areas ofthe northeast portion ofthe
cemetery. [See generallyt DOB Exhibits 2 and 3]. The two areaswere identified as "Section
J" and "New Section J" and in this proposal for decision will be referred to in combination as
"Section J." [Weatherall Exhibit 3 and DOB Exhibit 4]. The records, although too poorly
kept to enable an exact count, show that few burialstook place in Section J before 2009, when
DOB Docket 13-11-326
Antioch St James Cemetery Company, et al.
Proposal for Decision Following Exceptions Page 5
BANKING DEPT
404
the respondents took over operation. The records show a total of approximately24 burialsin
that section between 1984 and 2008, with no burialsrecorded during 10 ofthose 25 years.
POB Exhibit 3]. Approximately 132 burials were done from 2009 through 2012, with 106
ofthose done in 2010 and 2011. [Id.]. MrWeatherall testifiedthat 80-83% ofthe graves were
sold directly to his funeral home [TR 129] andthat many ofthe graves were donated for
hardship cases.
Reports ofExamination from the Staffand Responses from the Cemetery Company
From the outset ofthe respondents' ownership, Department staff reviewed the
respondents' operations ofthe cemetery. Staffperformed three audits orexaminations ofthe
operations ofthe Cemetery Company and prepared aReport of Examination ("ROE") for
each ofthe audits/examinations. As aresult ofthe examinations and the inadequacy ofthe
respondents' attempts of compliance, the Commissioner of Banking issued a Cease and Desist
Order in 2012,andthe staffinitiated this enforcement proceeding.
First Audit: Period Ended June 30.2010
The first audit ofthe Cemetery Company's operations covered the period to June 30,
2010. POB Exhibit 1, pp. 7-20]. In general, the ROE noted that cemetery operations were
adequate, the property and grounds were adequately maintained, and nocomplaints were on
file. The ROE documented what was stated tohave been 11 violations of law [TR 16],
involving at least 67 instances ofviolation. POB Exhibit 1, pp. 7-20]. The ROE from this
audit was sent to the respondents by letter dated August 2,2010, and directed correction by no
later than September 6,2010. [DOB Exhibit 1, pp. 8-9]. The evidence does not present an
accurate picture ofthe respondent's response to this ROE. [TR 21].
(f^ DOB Docket 13-11-326
Antioch St JamesCemeteryCompany, etal.
Proposal for Decision Following Exceptions Page 6
BANKING DEPT
405
Second Audit: June 20.2010 to June 30.2011
The results ofthe second audit, which coveredthe period of June 20,2010 to June 30,
2011, are contained in the ROE that was sent to the respondents by letterdated October 19,
2011. POB Exhibit 1, pp. 22-41]. This ROEnoted thatthe overall condition ofthe operation
ofthe Cemetery Company had deteriorated. The corporate charter hadbeen forfeited as of
January 28,2011, for failure to pay franchise taxes. The grounds werein poor condition and
a complaint was on file. In the complaint, a family was concerned aboutthe condition ofthe
grandfather's grave. [TR 22; DOB Exhibit 1, pp. 69-72]. Mr. LePlante inspected the cemetery
on August 11,2011, in response to the complaint and concluded, in general, thatthe
complaint was well founded. pOB Exhibit 1,p. 73]. Mr. LePlante noted that poor condition
ofthe grounds, mostly in Section J, which included sunken-in graves, what appeared tohave
been part of a casket protruding from theground, graves laid out in different directions, poor
marking of graves without headstones, veryold headstones having beenbroken, with some
appearing to havebeen pushed offof graves and partially covered by dirt inthe excess dirt
pilein the far northeast corner ofthe cemetery. [TR 25]. Lotpins that locate sections ofthe
cemetery were lying on the ground in various places. Mr. Weatherall responded to the
complaint and parts of Mr. LePlante's report ofhisAugust 11 site visit byletter dated
September 6,2011. Mr. Weatherall's response included hisunderstanding that the headstones
found inthe dirt pile were inashed that was there when they purchased the property, which
was torn down to make room for more burial plots. pOB Exhibit 1, p. 82].
The 2011 ROE listed 19 violations of law, including 8 repeat violations (from the
audit in 2010), which involved more than 350 instances ofviolations. [DOB Exhibit 1, pp. 21-
DOB Docket 13-11-326
AntiochSt. James CemeteryCompany, et al.
Proposal for Decision Following Exceptions Page7
BANKING DEPT
406
41; DOB Exhibit2]. There was a shortage of $2,770.19 in the PCTF, whichthe respondents
made up before the end of November, 2011. [TR 32; DOB Exhibit 1, p. 58]. The re-plat of
Section J was deficient in several respects. [TR 34-44; DOB Exhibit 4 (Re-Plat of Section J,
filed for record on 09/01/11); DOB Exhibit5 (Plat of "Old Cemetery Section," showing
county record numbers)]. DOB Exhibit 5 is understood to have been the plat of Section J as it
was set out atthe time when ownership ofthe cemetery changed from Mr. Wrightto the
respondents. [TR 43]. Conveyance documents had not been issued for 6 ofthe 50 instances
that the 2010 ROEdocumented had notbeen issued as of June 30,2010. [TR 54]. The ROE
includes a report of each category ofviolation with adescription of supporting evidence.
The June 30,2011, ROEwassentto Mr. Weatherall by letter dated October 19,2011,
withinstructions to correct theviolations byNovember 23,2011. [TR 22-23; seeDOB
Exhibit 1,p. 60]. Mr. Weatherall testified that corrective action had been taken. [TR 58-60].
The respondents sent acopyof theMinutes of November 11,2011, board meeting at which
discussions oftheviolations and corrective actions were recorded. POB Exhibit 1, pp. 58-
60]. The minutes summarized adiscussion that Mr. Weatherall was not aware that adeposit
tothe PCTF was due for donated graves, that he misunderstood the amount for deposit could
include $1.75 per square foot as an alternative to 15% ofthetotal sales price, and that 85% of
the graves were donated. The minutes noted aplan for making and monitoring deposits and
for auditing all books and deposits monthly. The minutes stated that all shortages have been
corrected, correction for the contract for sale has been corrected, the interment/disinterment
register has been corrected, all deeds have been corrected and issued to buyers, documentation
of proofofownership ofthecemetery was provided, ownership ofthe"Museum" (an unused
^ DOB Docket 13-11-326
Antioch St James CemeteryCompany, et al.
Proposal for Decision Following Exceptions Page 8
BANKING DEPT
407
mausoleum, see, DOB Exhibit 1, p. 64) was provided, correction regarding corporate status
was provided, and that response to the consumercomplaint was timely done. Also noted is an
intentionby the board to ask for an extension oftime to re-plat the property. The minutes
made referencesto tabs of supporting documents for most items, but the tabs were not
included in the exhibit. Per a December 20,2011, letter, the staff concluded that most ofthe
stated corrections were not adequate, listed the deficiencies, and referenced an upcoming
limited scope examination. pOB Exhibit 1,pp. 61-66]. Per a January 24,2011,letter, the
staffnoted receipt ofthe required documentation regarding the platting issue and proofof
deposit to ihePCTF. POB Exhibit 1, p. 67], Department staff instructed Mr. Weatherall to
provide by January 14,2012, documentation of all actions taken to address the uncorrected
violations stated in the December 20 letter. [TR61 -66]. Mr. Weatherall sentnotice on
(^ January 24,2012, which stated they had stopped selling graves in and closed Section J.
Limited Scope Examination: Period Ending February 7.2012
As a result ofthe findings of auniform riskrating of 5 in the previous examination, a
limited scope examination was conducted sooner than according tothe usual schedule. [TR
56]. The limited scope examination was conducted todetermine the extent that management
corrected the 19categories of violations that were documented inthe June 30,2011, ROE and
to review operations between July 1,2011, andthe date ofthe exam. Mr. LePlante was on-
site inNovember, 2011, determined the extent that the respondents corrected violations from
the 06/30/11 ROE, reviewed all post-June 30,2011, purchase and conveyance documents, and
compared burial cards and interment recor4ds for all ofthe recordedburials in Section J. The
ROE from the limited scope examination documents the findings oftheDepartment staff. [TR
#*^ DOB Docket 13-11-326
Antioch St JamesCemetery Company, et al.
Proposal for Decision Following Exceptions Page 9
BANKING DEPT
408
42-57]. Mr. LePlante determined that, as ofthe November 23,2011 deadline, corrective
action had not been taken for 11 ofthe 19 categories ofviolations from the 06/30/11 ROE.
POB Exhibit 1, p. 47]. The 02/07/12 ROE also documents 16 categories ofnew violations,
including 11 repeat violations, which involved many instances ofviolation. POB Exhibit 1,
pp. 42-57; See also, TR 57]. In general, the overall condition ofthe cemetery had not
improved and was described to be critically poor. [DOB Exhibit 1, p. 47]. The condition in
Section Jwas slightly improved. [Id., at p. 49]. More specifically, the ROE includes areport
ofeach category ofviolation with adescription ofsupporting evidence. From an exit meeting
by telephone on February 16,2012, the ROE notes that Mr. Weatherall agreed with the
findings and planned toimplement corrective actions. [DOB Exhibit 1, p. 56]. The staff
concluded that it willrefer thematter tothelegal division for action. pOB Exhibit 1, p. 56].
Certificate of Authority No. 74
The Cemetery Company operated under authority of Certificate of Authority No. 74
from the time of change of ownership in2009. The department did notrenew the certificate
asofthe March 1,2012renewal date. POB Exhibit 1, p. 3]: Mr. Weatherall testified that
they did notreceive notice that the application for renewal ofthe certificate had been denied.
[TR 108;Weatherall Exhibit 1].
Cease and Desist Order
On May 16,2012,the Commissioner signed Order No. 2012-011, anEmergency
Order To Cease And Desist From Operating A Perpetual Care Cemetery Without A Valid
Certificate Of Authority And From Violating Texas Health And Safety Code, effective the
date of signing. The order included Findings of Fact and Conclusions that the respondents
DOB Docket 13-11-326
Antioch St. James Cemetery Company, et al.
Proposal for Decision Following Exceptions Page 10
BANKING DEPT
409
"*N
violated many provisions ofthe Health and SafetyCode andFinance Commission Rules.
[DOB Exhibit 1, pp. 1-6]. The Commissioner ordered the respondents to ceaseand desist (1)
from the sale of any cemetery spaces or interment rights in the cemetery until the department
confirmed that all violations were corrected, and (2) from all cemetery operations except for
burials for persons who own plots as ofthe date ofthe order, and for maintenance ofthe
property. [Id.]. The commissioner also ordered the respondents to ensure that each burial
allowed under the order occurs in a plot that is exclusively reserved for the use ofthe current
owner and that all required documentation is properly completed and maintained and sent to
the department within two business days of burial. [Id.].
Banking Commissioner's Enforcement Authority
Health and Safety Code Sec. 711.055
(b) After notice and opportunity forhearing,the commissioner may impose an
administrative penalty on a personwho:
(1) violates this chapter or a final orderofthe commissioner or rale of the Finance
Commission ofTexas and does not correct the violation before the 31st day after the
date the personreceiveswrittennoticeofthe violation from the Texas Department of
Banking; or, '
(2) engages in a pattern ofviolations, as determined by the commissioner.
(c) The amount ofthe penalty for each violation may not exceed $1,000 for eachday the
violation occurs.
(d) In determining the amountofthe penalty, the commissioner shall consider the
seriousness ofthe violation,the person'shistory of violations, and the person's good faith in
attempting to comply with this chapter. The commissionermay collect the penalty in the same
manner that a money judgment is enforced in district court
Health and Safety Code Sec. 711.056
(a) If aftera hearing conductedas provided by Chapter 2001, Govemment Code,the trier of
fact finds that a violation ofthis chapter or a rule ofthe Finance Commission ofTexas
establishes a pattern of wilful disregard forthe requirements ofthis chapter of rules ofthe
finance commission, the trier of fact shall recommend to the commissioner that the maximum
administrative penalty permitted under Section 711.055 be imposed on the person committing
the violation orthat the commissioner cancel ornotrenew the person's permit under Chapter
154, Finance Code, ifthe person holds sucha permit.
f^ DOB Docket 13-11-326
Antioch St JamesCemetery Company, et al.
Proposal for Decision Following Exceptions Page 11
BANKING DEPT
m 4 r\
*f IU
/SS^N
(b) For the purposes ofthis section, violations corrected as provided by Section 711.055 may
beincluded in determining whether a pattern ofwilful disregard for the requirements ofthis
chapter or rules ofthe finance commission exists.
A permit underChapter 154 ofthe Finance Codeis not involved in this case.
Health and Safety Code 712.0441
(a) After notice and opportunity for hearing, the commission may impose an
administrative penalty on a person who:
(1) violates this chapter ora final order ofthecommissioner or rule ofthe Finance
Commission ofTexas and does not correct the violation before the 31st day after the date the
person receives written notice ofthe violation from the banking department;
or,
(2) engages in apattern ofviolations, as determined by the commissioner.
(b) The amount ofpenalty for each violation may not exceed $1,000 for each day the
violation occurs.
(c) In determining the amount ofthe penalty, the commissioner shall consider the
seriousness ofthe violation, the person's history ofviolations, and the person's good faith in
attempting to comply with this chapter.
Health and Safety Code Sec. 712.0442
(a) If, after ahearing conducted as provided by Chapter 2001, Government Code, the trier of
fact finds that aviolation ofthis chapter or arule ofthe Finance Commission ofTexas
establishes apattern ofwilful disregard for the requirements ofthis chapter rules ofthe
finance commission, the trier offact may recommend to the commissioner that the maximum
administrative penalty permitted under Section 712.0441 be imposed on the person
committing the violation or that the commissioner cancel or not renew the corporation's
certificate ofauthority under this chapter ifthe person holds such a certificate.
(b) For the purposes ofthis section, violations corrected as provided by Section 712.0441
may be included in determining whether apattern ofwilful disregard for the requirements of
this chapter or rules of thefinance commission exists.
Analysis by the Administrative Law Judge
The evidence proves the occurrence ofviolations ofthe laws regulating the operation
ofaperpetual care cemetery as charged by the stafffor each violation, with one exception.
The administrative lawjudge concludes that the charge ofviolation ofHealth and Safety Code
§712.0037, which sets forth the conditions for annual renewal ofacertificate ofauthority,
does not meet the criteria for imposition ofan administrative penalty after adecision not to
DOB Docket 13-11-326
Antioch St. James Cemetery Company, etal.
Proposal for Decision Following Exceptions page j2
BANKING DEPT
411
renew the certificate of authority. Under Section 712.0037(a),the commissioner reviews the
holder's application for renewal and determineswhether the holder meets the qualifications
and requirements for holding a certificate. The charged violation involves one ofthose
requirements. The commissioner may decide not to renew the certificate of authority, which
is what happened in this case. The decision not to renew was the consequence for the
respondents' failingto meet the requirements of Section 712.0037(a). The administrative law
judge concludes that failure to meet the requirements of Section 712.0037(a) is not a violation
that is subjectto assessment of an administrative penalty afterthe decision not to renewthe
respondents' certificate of authority. Operation ofa perpetual care cemetery without a
certificate of authority is a violation, of course, and that violation is included in the
Conclusions ofLaw. The remainingissues involve the assessment and amount ofan
administrative penalty.
The Commissioner Has Discretion To Determinethe Amount of Penalty
Assessment ofan administrative penalty is discretionary. Under Health and Safety
Code §§711.056 and 712.0441, the Commissioner may assess an administrative penalty of up
to $1,000 perdayofviolation iftheresponsible person (1) does not correct the violation
within30 days ofnotification or(2) engages in a pattern ofviolation. In thiscase, Mr.
Weatherall is responsible for multiple violations that are set forth in the Conclusions of Law,
which countin the hundreds and which involve multiple days for mostviolations. The
violations include boththose that were notcorrected within-30 days of notice and those that
establish apattern of violation. Accordingly, the Commissioner isauthorized by Chapters 711
and 712 to assess administrative penalties in an amount greatly exceeding the staffs
DOB Docket 13-11-326
Antioch St James Cemetery Company, et al.
Proposal for Decision Following Exceptions Page 13
BANKING DEPT
« 4 n
recommended range of $56,000 to $70,000 for fourteen violations.
If thetrier of fact finds that violations establish a pattern of wilful disregard for the
requirements of law, then thetrier of fact may under §712.0442(a) and shall under
§711.056(a) recommend that the Commissioner impose the maximum administrative penalty
permitted or, under Section 712.0442, cancel or not renew the corporation's certificate of
authority under this chapter ifthe person holds such acertificate. The evidence presented at
the hearing proved apattern ofwilful disregard conceming the violations. It appears that the
main reasons for the continuing violations were ignorance ofthe law at first, but later was
incompetence and an indifference concerning management ofthe cemetery and the cemetery
company. Nevertheless, the evidence proves the factors that support making afinding of
wilful disregard. Adetermination ofthe issue ofwilful disregard would not have apractical
impact in this case, however, because the staffhas recommended alesser monetary penalty
than what would be 1he, maximum.
The seriousness ofthe violation, the person's history ofviolations, and the person's
good faith in attempting to comply with the requirements oflaw are the factors prescribed by
§§711.055 and 712.0442 to consider for deciding how much administrative penalty to assess.
In this case, the many types ofviolations cover arange ofseriousness. The violations
concerning failure todisclose on the sale/purchase agreements the accurate amount to be
deposited in the Perpetual Care Trust Fund appear to be low on the seriousness scale. Failure
to make timely deposits in the Perpetual Care Trust Fund involve ahigher seriousness, but the
shortages ultimately were made up. The violations offailure to accurately plat and file for
record an accurate plat and offailures to keep accurate burial records are particularly serious,
" DOB Docket 13-11-326
Antioch St James Cemetery Company, etal.
Proposal for Decision Following Exceptions Page 14
BANKING DEPT
413
because they are necessary for anyone to locate the graves of those who were buried. It
appears that theseviolations werea factor in some ofthe complaints. The violation ofthe
Commissioner's Order is a very serious violation. The history of somay violations during a
short period of time andofa violation ofthe Cease and Desist order weighs heavily in favor
of a higher penalty. Mr. Weatherall's actions to correct many ofthe violations and that
resulted in the continuing occurrence of violations demonstrates both good faith anda lack of
good faith. In addition, it appears that the non-renewal ofthe certificate ofauthority and the
tacts that the respondents have lost ownership ofthecemetery property, have terminated the
corporation, and are out ofthe cemetery business, would weigh substantially against ahigher
amount of penalty.
Ultimately, the evidence supports an administrative penalty inthe range that the staff
advocated. The evidence shows a very large number ofdays ofviolation, with some ofthe
violations being very serious. The evidence also could support a lesser penalty than the
minimum ofthe range that the staffseeks, because ofthe factors discussed above andbecause
the respondents appear to have acted more inincompetence than in bad faith. Based on the
above analysis, the administrative lawjudge recommends that the Commissioner impose an
administrative penalty that isno higher than the low end ofthe range advocated by the staff.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the evidence ofrecord and applicable law, the Administrative Law Judge
makes the following findings of factand conclusions of law.
1. Notice of hearing was timely given to all respondents.
2. Mr. Gerald Weatherall, Sr., appeared at the hearing individually and as former
DOB Docket 13-11-326
Antioch St James Cemetery Company, et al.
Proposal for Decision Following Exceptions Page 15
BANKING DEPT
414
President of Antioch St. Johns Cemetery d/b/a American Memorial Park.
3. Ms. Beverly Randall-Weatherall appeared at 1he hearing as former Vice-
President of Antioch St. Johns Cemetery d/b/a American Memorial Park.
4. Antioch St Johns Cemetery d/b/a American Memorial Park was aperpetual
care cemetery that islocated on 3.2 acres of land inGrand Prairie, Texas.
5. Antioch St Johns Cemetery d/b/a American Memorial Park was operated as a
corporation beginning in 1958, and is referred to herein as the "cemetery
company."
6. Gerald Weatherall, Sr., and Beverly Randall-Weatherall purchased and began
operating the cemetery property and the cemetery company in June, 2009.
7. The Secretary ofState forfeited the cemetery company's corporate charter as of
^ January, 2011, for failure to pay franchise taxes and reinstated the charter as of
November 7,2011.
8. Antioch St Johns Cemetery d/b/a American Memorial Park operated as a
perpetual care cemetery under Certificate ofAuthority No. 74.
9. When the Department decided not to renew Certificate ofAuthority No. 74, it
expired as ofthe March 1,2012, renewal date.
10. The Commissioner ofBanking signed Order No. 2012-011, an Emergency
Order to Cease and Desist against the cemetery company, Mr. Weatherall, and
Ms. Randall-Weatherall, on May 16,2012. .
11. The respondents did not request ahearing concerning Order No. 2012-011 or
otherwise challenge it.
f* DOB Docket 13-11-326
Antioch St James Cemetery Company, etal.
Proposal for Decision Following Exceptions Paee 16
BANKING DEPT
415
12. The cemetery company filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy after May 16,2012, but
the estate was converted back to the owners because there were no assets to sell
in bankruptcy.
13. Mr. Weatherall and Ms. Randall-Weatherall conveyed the cemetery property by
deed in lieu of foreclosure to Avery Weatherall after May 16,2012.
14. The respondents-terminated the cemetery company's corporate charter with the
Secretary of State after May 16,2012.
15. Gerald Weatherall, Sr., was president ofthe cemetery company and exercised
an active role as the person and officer who was responsible for the operations
ofthe cemetery and the cemetery company.
16. Beverly Randall-Weatherall was vice-president of the cemetery company but
did not exercise an active role in or responsibility for the operationsofthe
cemetery or the cemetery company.
17. The Findings ofFactthat areset forth in Order No. 2012-011 support
conclusions that the cemetery company and Gerald Weatherall, Sr., individually
and as president ofthe cemetery company, violated provisions ofthe Health
and Safety Code Chapters 711 and 712 and ofthe Finance Commission Rules
that are set forth therein and did not correctthe violations within 30 days after
receiving notice of them.
18. Staff of the Department's Special Audits Division conducted an examination of
the cemetery property and cemetery company as ofthe close of business on
June 30,2010. The Report of Examination identified violations of applicable
f^ DOB Docket 13-11-326
Antioch St James Cemetery Company, et al.
Proposal for Decision Following Exceptions Page 17
BANKING DtPT
416
law and instructed the respondents to correct the violations no later than
September 6,2010. Staff sentthe Report of Examination to the respondents on
August 2,2010.
19. Staff ofthe Department's Special Audits Divisionconducted an examination of
the cemetery property andcemetery company as ofthe closeofbusiness on
June 30,2011. TheReport of Examination identified violations of applicable
law and instructed the respondents to correct the violations no later than
November 23,2011. Staffsent the Report of Examination totherespondents
onOctober 19,2011. Theresponsible persons did nottimely correct all ofthe
violations.
20. StaffoftheDepartment's Special Audits Division conducted alimited scope
examination ofthe cemetery property and cemetery company asofthe close of
business on February 7,2012, in orderto determine the extent to which the
respondents had corrected previously noted violations. The Report of Limited
Scope Examination identified the extent to which previously noted violations
had been corrected and noted additional violations of applicable law and
instructed the respondents to notify the department oftheir actions correcting
the violations no later than July 4,2012. Staff sent the Report ofLimited Scope
Examination tothe respondents on April 30,2012. The responsible persons did
not timely correct all ofthe violations.
21. The condition ofthe cemetery property deteriorated after the respondents began
operation ofthe cemetery and cemetery company. In general, themaintenance
DOB Docket 13-11-326
C Antioch St James Cemetery Company, et al.
Proposal for Decision Following Exceptions Page 18
BANKING DEPT
417
ofthe cemetery was very poor, including the following: an entrance did not
have an adequate sign; sections within the cemetery werenot adequately
marked; graves had collapsed, creating deep sink holes, while therewere
mounds of dirt in otherareas; and, graves had been dug in both directions in
some cases.
22. The respondents corrected some ofthe individual violationsthat were set forth
in the reports of examination, but did not correctall the violations in eachtype
of violation within the stated deadlines.
23. Burial cards and the interment register show at least 77 instances of violation of
record keeping requirements concerning sales of cemetery plots and burials,
which were not correctedwithin 30 days after notice ofthe facts ofviolation
was given to the respondents.
24. The cemetery company records were in such poor shape that it is difficult and
probably impossible to determine from the records whose remains were buried
in which location. Examples ofthe deficiencies in the records are shown on
Department ofBanking Exhibit No. 3 and include:
a 21 burials shown on the burial cards were not recorded on the interment
register;
b. the interment register reflects two burials in the samespace on 8
occasions;
c. the interment register reflectsa burial in a plot on 6 occasions when the
burial card for the plot does not show a burial;
d. on 4 occasions, the burial card showsthe burial of a person in a plotand
the interment register showsthe burial of another person in that plot;
DOB Docket 13-11-326
Antioch St. James Cemetery Company, et al.
Proposal for Decision Following Exceptions Page 19
BANKING DEPT
418
/*^***V
e. on 4 occasions,the burial cardsand the interment register show
different burial plots for the same person; and,
f. on 4 occasions, the burial cards andthe interment register show
different persons wereburied in the sameburial plot.
25. The cemetery companyon manyoccasions did not accurately identify on the
interment records ofthe cemetery the plot in which the remains of an individual
are interred.
26. The cemetery company did notrecord the final disposition of purchase
agreements on the historical contract register on many occasions and did not
correctthe deficiencies within 30 days after notice ofthe facts ofviolation was
given to the respondents.
27. The cemetery company didnotmaintain accurate separate property files in the
names ofthe purchasers of burial plots on many occasions and did not correct
the deficiencies within 30 days after notice ofthe facts of violation was given to
the respondents.
28. The cemetery company repeatedly did notmaintain a current financial
statement that substantiated the use ofincome from the Perpetual Care Trust
Fund.
29. The cemetery company consistently did notaccurately calculate the amount of
money to be deposited in the Perpetual CareTrust Fund.
30. The cemetery company did not for almost every month of its operation deposit
within 20 days after the end ofthe month in which purchase agreements were
paid in full any amount of money in the Perpetual Care Trust Fund. The
J**V DOB Docket 13-11-326
Antioch St James CemeteryCompany, et al.
Proposal for Decision Following Exceptions Page 20
BANKING DEPT
419
cemetery company did deposit the required amounts after department staff
notified the respondents ofthe deficiencies.
31. The cemetery company did not disclose onagreements to purchase acemetery
plot the correct amount ofmoney to be deposited in the Perpetual Care Trust
Fund on many occasions and didnotcorrect the deficiencies within 30 days
after notice of the facts' of violation was given to the respondents.
32. The cemeterycompany didnot maintain accurate monthlyrecapitulations ofthe
interment rights or conveyance ofburial plot rights on many occasions anddid
not correct the deficiencies within 30 days after notice ofthe facts of violation
was given to the respondents.
33. The cemetery company did not prepareand file with the county clerk an
accurate map or plat of Section J that showed the cemetery plots and their
orientation to the remainder ofthe cemetery property, including the boundaries
of the cemetery property.
34. The cemetery company sold cemetery plots on many occasions without having
filed an adequate accurate map or plat of Section J with the countyclerkand
has not filed such a plat
35. The cemetery company did not issue to the appropriate person and file in its
office the conveyance document aftercemetery plots were paid in full on many
occasions and often did not correct those deficiencies within 30 days after
notice ofthe facts of violation was given to the respondents.
36. The cemetery companyoperated andconducted cemeteryoperations after
March 1,2012.
DOB Docket 13-11-326
Antioch St. James Cemetery Company, et al
Proposal for Decision Following Exceptions Page 21
BANKING DEPT
37. The cemetery company did not send notice ofthe June 14,2012, burial ofLena
Sneed-Holleman to the department within two days as required by Order No.
2012-011.
38. Although Mr. Weatherall attempted to address violations that were brought to
hisattention, the failure tocorrect all oftheviolations and the continual
frequent repetition ofthe several types ofviolation throughout the time he was
responsible for the operations ofthe cemetery company establishes apattern of
wilful disregard for the requirements ofthe law that applies to perpetual care
cemeteries.
39. The continual occurrences ofviolations and Mr. WeatheraU's actions
concerning the operations ofthe cemetery and the cemetery company were
initially more the result ofignorance ofthe legal requirements and later, of
combinations ofan inability to accomplish and inattention to the
accomplishment ofthe legal requirements. Mr. Weatherall eventually made up
the shortages in the Perpetual Care Trust Fund after the department staff
notified him and demanded compliance. He attempted to address the
complaints. Some ofthe record-keeping deficiencies were corrected after
notice and demand from the staff He ultimately gave up the cemetery and
cemetery company as aresult of financial insolvency. He has continued to pay
for some maintenance ofthe cemetery property.
DOB Docket 13-11-326
Antioch St James Cemetery Company, etal.
Proposal for Decision Following Exceptions p 99
BANKING DEPT
421
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Proper notice ofhearing was timely given to Antioch St. James Cemetery
Company d/b/a/ American Memorial Park ("cemetery company"), Gerald
Weatherall Sr., individually and as president ofthe cemetery company, and
Beverly Randall-Weatherall as vice-president ofthe cemetery company.
2. The Commissioner ofBanking has jurisdiction to enforce the provisions ofthe
Texas Health and Safety Code and Texas Finance Commission Rules
concerning the operations ofperpetual care cemeteries, specifically with respect
to Antioch St James Cemetery Company d/b/a American Memorial Park, the
actions ofGerald Weatherall, Sr., individually and as president ofthe cemetery
company, and the actions ofBeverly Randall-Weatherall as vice-president of
the cemetery company, and to the violations which are charged in this docket.
3. During the period from 2009 to March 1,2012, when itwas owned and
operated by the respondents, Antioch St. James Cemetery d/b/a American
Memorial Park was aperpetual care cemetery under Health and Safety Code
§711.001(24) that was operated under Certificate ofAuthority No. 74.
4. Order No. 2012-011, the May 16,2012, Emergency Cease and Desist Order
concerning the respondents in this case, is afinal order and its Findings ofFact
are taken as true.
5. The responsible persons violated Health andSafety Code §711.003(4) on
multiple occasions by failing to accurately identify on the interment records of
the cemetery the plot in which the remains ofaspecific individual was interred
DOB Docket 13-11-326
Antioch St. James Cemetery Company, etal.
Proposal for Decision Following Exceptions p ~o
BANKING DEPT
422
and failing to correct the violations within 30 days after receiving notice ofthe
violations from the Department
6. The responsible persons violated Finance Commission Rule 7 Texas
Administrative Code §26(2)(b)(4) on multiple occasions by failing to record the
final disposition of purchase agreementson the historicalcontractregisterand
failing to correctthe violationswithin 30 days after receiving notice ofthe
violations from the Department
7. The responsible persons violated FinanceCommission Rule 7 Texas
Administrative Code §26(2)(b)(3) on multiple occasions by failing to maintain
separate property files in the names ofthe purchasers and failing to correct the
violations within 30 days afterreceiving notice ofthe violations from the
Department.
8. The responsible personsviolated Finance Commission Rule 7 Texas
Administrative Code §26.2(b)(l)(A) on several occasions by failing to maintain
a financial statement thatsubstantiates the cemetery's use oftrust fund income
and failing to correct the violations within 30 days after receiving notice ofthe
violations from the Department
9. The responsible persons violated Health and Safety Code §712.028(a) on
multiple occasions by failing to accurately calculate theamount of perpetual
care funds to bedeposited and failing tocorrect theviolations within 30 days
after receiving notice ofthe violations from theDepartment.
DOB Docket 13-11-326
Antioch St JamesCemetery Company,et al.
Proposal for Decision Following Exceptions Page 24
BANKING DEPT
423
r
10. The responsible persons violated Health and Safety Code §712.029(c) on
multiple occasions by failing to timely deposit thecorrect amount of funds into
the perpetualcare trust fund.
11. The responsible persons violated Health and Safety Code §712.029(a) on
multiple occasions by failing todisclose on the purchase agreements the correct
amount of perpetual care funds tobe deposited inthe perpetual care trust fund
and failing to correct the violations within 30 days after receiving notice ofthe
violations from the Department.
12. The responsible persons violated Finance Commission Rule7 Texas
Administrative Code §26.2(b)(5) on multiple occasions by failing to maintain
accurate monthly recapitulations ofall interment rights issued and failing to
correct theviolations within 30days after receiving notice ofthe violations
from the Department
13. The responsible persons violated Health and Safety Code §711.034(a)(1) by
failing to accurately survey and map or plat Section Jofthe cemetery property
showing the plots contained within the perimeter boundary and showing a
specific unique number for each plot and failing to correct the violations within
30 days after receiving notice ofthe violations from the Department.
14. The responsible persons violated Health and Safety Code §711.034(b) by
failing to file an accurate map or plat ofSection.Jwith the county clerk in
which the cemetery is located and failing to correct theviolations within 30
days after receiving notice ofthe violations from the Department
DOB Docket 13-11-326
AntiochSt James Cemetery Company, et al.
Proposal for Decision Following Exceptions Paee 25
BANKING DEPT
424
15. The responsible persons violated Health and Safety Code §711.038(a)(1) by
selling, conveying, or both selling and conveying the exclusive right of
sepulture ina plot inSection Jbefore an accurate map or plat and acertificate
or declaration of dedication was filed with the county clerk as provided by
Section711.034and failing to correct the violations within30 days after
receiving notice ofthe violations from the Department.
16. The responsible persons violated Finance Commission Rule §26.5 by failing on
multiple occasions, withrespect to Section J, to issue aconveyance document
for a cemetery plot, as defined by Health and Safety Code §711.001(25), no
later than 20 days afterthe end ofthe monthin which the contract is paid in full
and failingto correct the violations within 30 days afterreceivingnotice ofthe
violations from the Department
17. The responsible persons violated Health and Safety Code §711.038(c) by
failing on multiple occasions, with respectto Section J, to file in the cemetery
organizations'office the conveyance ofthe exclusive rightof sepulture in
Section J and failing to correct the violations within 30 days after receiving
notice ofthe violations from the Department
18. The responsiblepersonsviolated Health and Safety Code §712.0032 by
operatinga perpetual care cemetery after March 1,2012, without holdinga
certificate of authority to operate a perpetual care cemetery under Health and
Safety Code Chapter 712.
DOB Docket 13-11-326
Antioch St James Cemetery Company, et al.
Proposal for Decision Following Exceptions Page 26
BANKING DEPT
425
19. The responsible persons violated Commissioner Order No. 2012-011 by
burying the body ofa person on June 14,2012, and failing to timely send the
required documentation to the Department.
20. With respect to the assertedviolation of Health and Safety Code §712.0037(a),
the responsible person's actions conceming failure to maintain required
minimum capital did not amount to a violation oflaw that is subjectto
imposition of an administrative penalty after the department decided not to
renew the certificate of authority.
21. Gerald Weatherall, Sr., is the person who is responsible, individually and in his
capacity as former president ofAntioch St. James Cemetery d/b/a American
Memorial Park, for the violations oflaw that are set forth in these Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law.
22. The Commissioner of Banking in his discretion has the authority under Health
and Safety Code Sections 712.0441 and 711.055 to assess an administrative
penalty against Antioch St James Cemetery d/b/a American Memorial Park
and Gerald Weatherall, Sr., in his individual capacity and in his capacity as
former president ofthe cemetery company, in the amount of$1,000 for each
day of violation.
23. An administrative penalty in the amount of up to $70^000.00 is supported by
the evidence under the provisions ofHealth and Safety Code Sections 711.055,
711.056, 712.0441, and 712.0442.
DOB Docket 13-11-326
Antioch St. James Cemetery Company, et al.
Proposal for Decision Following Exceptions Page 27
BANKING DEPT
429
m
Order No. 2013- U day of November, 2013.
(^-*s?' /CsL-
Charles G. Cooper
Banking Commissioner
Page 2
DOB Docket 13-11-326
Antioch St. Johns Cemetery Company, et al
Final Order