The City of Vero Beach is asking a judge to dismiss an amended lawsuit alleging Crestlawn Cemetery damaged and reinterred a child’s remains without notifying the child’s parents, arguing the complaint fails to state a claim for relief.
The motion to dismiss was filed July 6 in Indian River County Circuit Court in response to an amended complaint filed June 25 by Adam Chrzan and Tanya Crovo against the city, which operates Crestlawn Cemetery.
The lawsuit stems from allegations involving the burial site of the couple’s child, identified in court documents as A.C., who died in 2007 at 37 days old and was buried at Crestlawn Cemetery.
According to the amended complaint, the parents learned in April 2025 that A.C.’s remains had allegedly been damaged or destroyed during maintenance or irrigation work at the cemetery. The complaint alleges trench digging equipment or other heavy machinery breached the burial site, damaging the casket and remains.
The plaintiffs allege cemetery workers later retrieved the remains and placed them into a new casket before reinterring them, without notifying or obtaining consent from the parents.
The amended complaint alleges the city failed to properly maintain the cemetery, failed to protect the burial site, and failed to notify the parents of the alleged disturbance. It includes seven counts against the city: tortious interference with a burial plot, tortious interference with a burial plot under negligence per se, tortious interference with human remains, tortious interference with human remains under negligence per se, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment.
The plaintiffs are seeking damages exceeding $50,000 and requested a jury trial.
In its motion, the city argues the amended complaint contains “redundant allegations” and does not clearly identify separate legal claims. The city argues Counts I through V rely on similar allegations and do not provide enough information for the city to prepare defenses.
The city also argues the plaintiffs cannot rely on certain cemetery regulations in Chapter 497 of Florida Statutes because municipal cemeteries are exempt from those provisions.
The motion states Crestlawn Cemetery is a municipal cemetery and argues that because of that exemption, the statutes and administrative rules cited by the plaintiffs cannot be used as the basis for negligence claims. The city also disputes the plaintiffs’ allegation that failing to file a report related to exempt cemeteries would remove that exemption.
The city further argues the complaint does not establish a claim for negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress, saying the allegations are based on claims of intentional or outrageous conduct for which the city argues it is immune.
Regarding the plaintiffs’ claims of intentional misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment, the city argues the complaint does not allege the city made any false statements or that the plaintiffs relied on any alleged concealment.
The city is asking the court to dismiss the amended complaint, with prejudice where appropriate.
The court has not ruled on the motion to dismiss.