William McKenrick died of cancer on a December morning in 2004, three days before his 71st birthday.
His wife of 51 years, Barbara McKenrick, has not had a moment of peace since. And neither, she worries, has he.
Mrs. McKenrick's troubles started when she went to Glen Haven Memorial Park in Glen Burnie to inquire about her husband's burial. To her surprise, she was told that the spaces the couple had picked out and paid for almost 10 years in advance weren't ready.
Glen Haven offered to temporarily place her husband's body in a not-so-final resting place.
That was three years ago.
Barbara McKenrick, 73, is still waiting.
"They put him in this drawer that's so high, I can't even reach him or put flowers up there," she said.
"They even have the gall to call me every once in a while about a closing cost that I already paid. Every time they call, I think they're going to get their act together and move him permanently to where he's supposed to be.
"It's an awful heartache for me and my kids," she said. "He's just not in his resting place."
Sadly, funerals can catch consumers at their most vulnerable, emotionally and financially.
Some state laws exist to protect you. For instance, you can get a refund for prepaid services when you move more than 75 miles away from the cemetery. You don't have to purchase caskets and grave markers from the cemetery. Cemeteries must have a trust fund for long-term grounds maintenance.
There are no laws, however, to protect you when a cemetery doesn't deliver on a prepaid burial space.
There will be an effort to address this in the next General Assembly session, George Piendak, director of the state's Office of Cemetery Oversight (OCO), assured me. But that doesn't help Mrs. McKenrick.
The fact of the matter is that she upheld her part of the contract. Glen Haven has not.
Both sides agree that the McKenricks in 1996 knowingly chose plots in the cemetery's Eternity section that had yet to be constructed. Using a Glen Haven certificate for a free interment space, the couple paid $3,400.19 for a second space, according to paperwork that Mrs. McKenrick saved.
The couple put $1,000.19 down and paid off the rest in monthly installments of $100.
McKenrick said she didn't think about Glen Haven again - until the space was actually needed on Dec. 11, 2004.
"The lady at the cemetery looked at me and told me the Eternity section wasn't done," McKenrick said. "It was getting dark and it was cold out. They told me to go outside and find another spot to bury him.
"I was speechless."
Seeing little choice, McKenrick agreed to the mausoleum space that Glen Haven offered. It's not as if she could take her husband's body home. Glen Haven charged $1,195 to her credit card for opening and closing costs to temporarily inter her husband's body.
Since then, McKenrick has called and written Glen Haven several times. She complained to the OCO, which in turn wrote to Glen Haven in 2005 asking for a response. At that time, McKenrick received yet another unfulfilled promise.
"The lawn crypt section, Eternity A, is scheduled to begin construction in the Spring of 2005, subject to variables such as weather," Sarah F. Rex, Glen Haven's area administrator, wrote in a letter to the OCO. "The units to be installed are already on site. The McKenricks' selection is in phase A so it should be available in late Spring or, at the latest, the end of July of this year."
The Rex letter was written Jan. 24, 2005.
That was the last she heard from Glen Haven or the OCO - if you don't count the calls from the cemetery demanding a final payment.
"It's hard enough to close a chapter in your life when the person you lived more than half your life with dies," McKenrick said. "We've already had one service for him, now I have to wait indefinitely for a second one? It's stressful. There's no closure to any of this."
I don't have good news for McKenrick and any others who may have purchased space in the Eternity section at Glen Haven.
Granted, she could sue.
Her contract says that if the cemetery is "unable to deliver the Property or perform the services attendant therewith as described in this Contract," she can get a full refund.
The cemetery can substitute goods substantially similar and of equal quality to the property, the contract says. That does not include interment spaces.
But McKenrick says the time, effort and cost of going to court is more than she can handle.
Rex, at Glen Haven, said the McKenricks knew they were purchasing pre-construction spaces and that the cemetery was under no obligation to tell them when the spaces would be ready.
"We will get in touch with her as soon as we can," Rex pledged, asking for McKenrick's patience.
Frank Milles, vice president of administration for Stonewall Partners, Glen Haven's owners in Pennsylvania, said the project was delayed because of a dispute with Anne Arundel County government. Glen Haven's previous owners neglected to apply for permits to build the Eternity section, he said.
When the cemetery did apply in May 2007 (not quite the "Spring of 2005" that Rex's letter stated), the county determined that Glen Haven had to plant trees to reforest the area first. He did not explain why the cemetery waited so long to apply for permits.
"Even though there were no trees being taken down for the project, they wanted us to spend well into six figures to reforest the area," Milles said. "We did not think the fee was appropriate. It went to court. We are now actively working with the county to resolve this matter."
Traci Reynolds, the county's Inspections and Permits spokesman, confirmed that Glen Haven was cited for building and grading violations. She said the two sides are still negotiating.
Milles apologized to McKenrick, adding, "We're trying to make good on the promises made to her. I'm very sympathetic to it. As soon as we get resolution to this, we're going to move forward. We're just asking for a little bit more patience."
Milles said a recent breakthrough in talks last week could grant Glen Haven a permit by month's end. The project could be finished by year's end, he said.
Piendak advised patience, too.
"The cemetery was too ambitious to create this and sell it before they had every single approval they needed," Piendak said. "She was presented with several options. She didn't want it. If she wants that space and nothing else, it makes it harder to resolve."
When I pressed further about what recourse is available to McKenrick and others should the cemetery fail to deliver indefinitely, Piendak scolded me.
"Don't be so negative," said Piendak, who is responsible for regulating cemeteries and for investigating and mediating complaints. "She hasn't got it, yet."
Well. It's mighty easy for everyone else to tell McKenrick to be patient. It's preposterous that no one can explain why the cemetery keeps demanding money from her. It's repugnant that no one suggested that McKenrick deserved a refund.
Really, isn't 11 years of patience enough? Or are they all waiting until the day Mrs. McKenrick needs the space she chose next to her husband?
Reach Consuming Interests by e-mail at consuminginterests @baltsun.com or by phone at 410-332-6151. Find an archive of Consuming Interest columns at baltimoresun.com/consuming.