Oregon: A Complex Legal Battle Over a Double-Sold Grave in Highlights Ownership, Grief, and Accountability

Oregon: A rare and emotionally charged legal dispute in Oregon has drawn attention to how burial rights, contractual obligations, and human grief can collide. At the center of the case is a grave plot in Northwest Portland that was mistakenly sold twice by a cemetery, leading to a judge’s decision that the remains of a young man must be removed. The ruling has sparked debate about responsibility, ethics, and the limits of legal remedies when deeply personal losses are involved.

Background of the Dispute

The case revolves around a grave plot at Skyline Memorial Gardens in Portland. The cemetery admitted that it accidentally sold the same burial site to two different families at different times. The first purchasers, Martin and Jane Reser, bought the plot in 2019 as part of a family burial area beneath a cedar tree. Later, the same plot was sold again to Paula Tin Nyo, who arranged for the interment of a memorial vault connected to her son, Tyber Harrison.

This administrative mistake went unnoticed until after the second interment had already taken place. Once discovered, the error set off a legal process that would ultimately determine who held the valid ownership rights to the burial space.

Court Ruling on Burial Rights

In December, Multnomah County Judge Eric J. Neiman ruled that the original buyers retained legal ownership of the grave plot. As a result, the court authorized the removal of the vault associated with Tyber Harrison so that the Reser family could use the site as originally intended.

A civil jury later found that Skyline Memorial Gardens had indeed been negligent in selling the plot twice. However, the jury also concluded that the cemetery’s actions did not amount to severe emotional distress under the law. This decision meant that Paula Tin Nyo was not entitled to the significant financial damages she had sought.

Details About the Families Involved

Martin and Jane Reser are members of a well-known Oregon family associated with a major food business. Their son, Alex Reser, died in 2019 after struggling with addiction, and he is buried nearby within the family plot. The disputed grave was intended to be part of a peaceful, unified memorial area for their family, including a bench placed near the cedar tree.

On the other side, Paula Tin Nyo’s son, Tyber Harrison, died at the age of 20 after being struck by a truck in Florida in 2016. Several years later, in 2021, Tin Nyo arranged for a vault containing personal mementos, including baby teeth, hair, artwork, and a small amount of ashes, to be placed in the grave plot she believed she had legally purchased.

Arguments Presented During the Trial

During the civil trial, attorneys for Skyline Memorial Gardens acknowledged the cemetery’s error and emphasized that efforts had been made to resolve the issue. According to the defense, the cemetery offered to refund Tin Nyo’s payment and relocate the vault to a nearby location. They argued that these steps met the requirements of both the contract and state law.

The defense also claimed that Tin Nyo violated the burial agreement by including cremated remains without proper authorization. Under Oregon law, cemeteries are subject to strict regulations, and unauthorized interment of ashes can limit liability for cemetery operators.

Tin Nyo’s legal team countered that the presence of a small amount of ashes did not justify disinterment. They argued that punitive damages were necessary to ensure that such a mistake would not happen again and to hold the cemetery accountable in a meaningful way.

Emotional Impact and Jury Decision

A major point of contention in the trial was the source of Paula Tin Nyo’s emotional distress. Her attorney portrayed her as a grieving mother overwhelmed by loss and unfamiliar with the fine print of complex burial contracts. The defense, however, pointed to evidence suggesting that her distress stemmed largely from unrelated financial and personal challenges.

After considering both sides, the jury concluded that while the cemetery acted negligently, its actions did not legally cause the level of emotional harm claimed. This verdict cleared the way for the removal of the vault in the coming weeks.

Broader Implications of the Case

This unusual case highlights how highly regulated the burial industry is and how errors, even when acknowledged, can have lasting emotional consequences. It also underscores the limits of the legal system in addressing grief. Financial compensation and court orders may resolve ownership disputes, but they cannot undo the pain experienced by families who believe their loved ones’ final resting places are being disturbed.

For cemeteries and funeral service providers, the case serves as a cautionary example of the importance of accurate record-keeping and clear communication. For families, it is a reminder to carefully review burial agreements, even during times of profound emotional vulnerability.