Funeral family asks court to intervene in dispute

Norm Heikens
January 3, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A family that once owned Forest Lawn Memory Gardens and Funeral Home in Greenwood has asked a Johnson County court to put the business into receivership amid questions about the status of trust funds set aside to pay funeral expenses and maintenance.

Fred Meyer Jr., along with a son, Jim Meyer, and a daughter, Nancy Cade, filed the papers in Johnson Superior Court yesterday. Another son, Tom Meyer, is not a party to filing.

The family wants a receiver to operate the business to ensure $24 million in trust funds are handled correctly, and permission to undertake discovery to determine their status.

"The Meyer family has grown increasingly concerned about this," said the family's attorney, Wayne Turner. "We really need to know the truth."

The cemeteries' owner, Robert Nelms, was not immediately available for comment. He owns Ansure Mortuaries of Indiana LLC, which is based in Indianapolis.

Nelms bought 12 companies owned by the Meyer family in December 2004 for $13 million in cash and $7.3 million in seller financing. The debt was to be settled as a balloon payment when a Nelms trust matured, said Turner, a partner in McTurnan & Turner, an Indianapolis firm that merged this year with Bingham McHale.

Included in the sale were Covington Memorial Gardens & Funeral Home in Fort Wayne and Chapel Hill Memorial Gardens & Funeral Home in Osceola, which is near South Bend. Also part of the deal was a fourth funeral and cemetery property, Chapel Hill Memorial Gardens in Grand Rapids, Mich.

Two days after Christmas, the Michigan Cemetery Commissioner sued Nelms in Michigan to stop him from gaining further access to trust funds for the Grand Rapids cemetery. Approximately $4.3 million of the total $24 million in trust funds was allocated to the Grand Rapids site.

Files from the Michigan case show that Nelms replaced the trust funds with debt backed by an entity called Indiana Investment LLC, but Turner said it isn't clear where the money ultimately was directed.

Turner said he has found no evidence that any of the $24 million in the trust funds still exists.

This summer, the Meyer family asked the Indiana Attorney's Office as well as the Indiana Secretary of State and Marion County Prosecutor's Office to investigate the matter.

Turner said he isn't privy to their findings.

Indiana Attorney General's Office spokeswoman Staci Schneider would only confirm that an investigation is under way. Representatives of the Secretary of State's Office and prosecutor's office could not immediately be reached for comment.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.