Death Care Law Blog : Kansas Death Care and Preneed Lawyer & Attorney : Stalter Legal Services Law Firm : Funeral Law, Elder Law : Kansas City

Over the next year, Missouri will examine the various flaws of SB1. One of those flaws concerns the independent investment advisor and the ‘fix’ meant to preclude conflicts of interest.

Preneed trusts have a poor track record in terms of investment performance. Trustees often fail to appreciate the key factors that impact investment strategies for preneed. Those factors can vary substantially from trust to trust, making the fund manager’s job more difficult.

Consequently, it is not uncommon to see large trusts delegate investment authority to an independent fund manager. Missouri’s old preneed law took the practice an ill-advised step too far by relieving the trustee of liability for the advisor’s decisions. NPS exploited that provision by appointing investment advisors who handed the keys to the vault to Lincoln Memorial. Believing themselves to be exculpated from investment liabilities, the NPS fiduciaries became bystanders to the largest preneed fraud in history.

Section 436.445 of SB1 appropriately requires the fiduciary to remain responsible for the investment advisor’s actions. However, the statute goes too far in attempting to preclude any relationship between the advisor and the seller. The provision was lifted from Missouri’s Uniform Trust Code without adequate consideration of the relationships of the seller, fiduciary and fund manager.

In contrast to SB1, the Uniform Trust Code does not prohibit relations between the trustor/seller and the investment advisor (or any service provider to the trust). Missouri’s preneed industry would be better served if such relations were allowed if fully disclosed and subjected to a higher level of scrutiny.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Veterans Day invariably results in a few newspaper articles similar to the one written about the Pittston City Cemetery. Out of respect for veterans’ graves, this small Pennsylvania town is seeking volunteers to provide care to its cemetery. Budget cuts and personnel cuts have left Pittston without the resources to provide maintenance to the cemetery.

The Pittston cemetery plight provides a context to one funeral director’s assertion that municipal cemeteries represent a ‘true value’ to consumers. The funeral director fails to grasp that the grave at a municipal cemetery is priced artificially low. Most municipal cemeteries are exempt from contributing to endowed care funds intended to provide care to the graves. Instead, taxpayers must subsidize the cemetery’s care. In lean times, the cemetery must go without care.

But for the veterans, would Pittston be seeking volunteers to cut the weeds and clean up the cemetery? Even in death, these veterans continue to serve their community.

Before purchasing a grave space, consumers should ask the cemetery how its maintenance will be funded in future years. If the cemetery maintains a care fund, determine whether it complies with state laws, and request information about the fund’s trustee.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In May 2009, the American Funeral Director editorial advised that fixing preneed has to be a cooperative effort, and that the industry needs to agree upon a plan before attempting to legislate a fix. In that same month, the Missouri legislature passed a ‘fix’ to the NPS abuses that incorporated provisions from a mixed bag of industry recommendations. The Missouri funeral industry is now learning that their recommendations don’t amount to much of a plan.

With rumblings that Chapter 436 would have to be reopened this year to fix SB1’s flaws, the State Board took two important steps towards a plan: suspending any legislative efforts by state regulators for at least a year, and establishing a forum for industry attorneys to provide input regarding SB1. So now, in who’s court is the ball?

Mr. Defort suggests that state associations must take the lead in developing the “plan”. Perhaps, but that would depend upon the strength of the particular association’s membership. The Missouri Funeral Director and Embalmer Association played a crucial role in passing SB1, but the Missouri preneed industry is large and diverse. Consequently, the MFDEA cannot be expected to shoulder the plan-building task alone.

Some might suggest the ‘big’ sellers should step up, but the national companies have preneed programs that already comply with more stringent requirements than those imposed by SB1. The big sellers are waiting for the regulators to clarify SB1’s ambiguities and conflicts.

Rather, the ball would seem to be in the regulator’s court, and more specifically, the court of the Division of Professional Registration.

If the Division needs some starting points for a plan, here are four:

• Develop an annual reporting system that operators can use to demonstrate compliance with the 80% funding requirements of existing trusts (so as to minimize audit expenses and lower the $36 contract fee)
• Develop an alternative to the broken joint account contract
• Establish a voluntary compliance program to fix the technical violations that have accumulated over the past 27 years (when there were no guidelines or oversight)
• Establish a “no action letter” procedure that will allow more sophisticated sellers to determine the boundaries of compliance.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The question isn’t whether preneed needs to change, but how to change it.

The November 2nd edition of the Funeral Insider highlights a new industry survey by Citrin Cooperman, a highly regarded accounting firm. The newsletter includes a section on preneed, and experts’ take on the survey. Their consensus is that preneed is broken. (Tell us something we didn’t already know!) But for the sake of giving sound bite advice, the experts compromise valid advice by resorting to generalities and false alarms.

The Citrin Cooperman survey is available for $295, a bit too rich for curiosity purposes. The accuracy of any survey is dependent upon sampling an appropriate representation of the population (in this case, the death care industry). What is lost by the FI critique of the guaranteed contract, is that applicable state law is the single greatest determinant of the structure of the preneed transaction.

Most of the country’s laws were written in response to the guaranteed contract, and do not contemplate any other form of preneed. If applicable law does not specifically authorize non-guaranteed preneed, most funeral directors will be reluctant to offer it. The availability of an alternative to the guaranteed contract is state specific, and therefore a survey limited to four states is of limited use to the remaining 92% of the nation.

With regard to the four survey states, it is worth noting that 8% of the respondents stopped offering the guaranteed contract during the past year. But does that mean 67% of the respondents are following the “wrong” strategy because they continue to offer a guarantee? Beyond state law, consumer expectations and/or competition dictate that a funeral home offer preneed, and then what form of preneed to offer. Most funeral homes are forced to respond to an evolving market, and the preneed resources available. It’s a business decision with many unique factors.

As the FI experts recommend, funeral homes need to pay more attention to their preneed program. But preneed isn’t an addictive drug, it is an option that consumers have come to expect. The problem with preneed is how the guarantee has been used to define the consumer’s expectations. But as funeral homes begin to limit their use of the guarantee and realign consumer’s expectations, preneed will become more complicated (and require more of the funeral director’s attention).

Consumers will still want to address the future costs of the funeral. If they are allowed to fund, but not purchase, how is the transaction to be regulated? Contrary to what one FI expert suggests, regulation of preneed has been based on a transaction involving the purchase of goods and services. Accordingly, many preneed sellers deem the payments as theirs upon receipt, even though those payments may be sitting in a trust, a bank account, or an insurance policy. This view of the transaction is supported by a series of position letters issued by the Securities Exchange Commission’ similar to the one issued to an Iowa preneed seller. The SEC wanted no part of regulating preneed.

As the industry moves to non-guaranteed preneed, or even partially guaranteed preneed, there will be a debate over who owns the trust funds, bank account or insurance policy: the consumer or the preneed seller. The answers will be more complicated, requiring more from our laws, regulators and the documents.

Too complicated for sound bite advice.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

With the upcoming new year, Illinois smaller funeral homes will begin searching for a corporate trustee for their preneed funds.  With the Legislature's approval of the Governor's Amendatory Veto of SB1682, funeral directors lose the authority to serve as fiduciary of their own preneed funds. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The anxiety over Missouri’s new preneed law will temporarily peak this Friday with the passing of the due dates for annual reports and license applications. To give the industry a breather, and to assess SB1’s flaws, the Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors reached an informal agreement on October 20th to table any corrective SB1 legislation for one year. While their emergency rules continue on the path to approval, the State Board will begin exploring ways to identify SB1’s problems, and to prioritize issues for permanent regulations.

To view the Board’s emergency rules click here.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Death care regulators seem to believe that the majority of funeral home and cemetery operators are honest and well intended.  But, the regulators must contend with the occasional operator who views trust funds as their own.  Before taking offense with the regulator's skepticism, operators need to reflect on the arrogance of operators such as those reflected in a recent Kansas news article. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Like most states’ preneed laws, Missouri’s Chapter 436 has always contemplated a depository accounts for the small funeral operator who provides preneed as an accommodation. Many funeral homes do not sell enough preneed to warrant the expense and hassle of either a trust or an insurance license. Chapter 436 allows the funeral director to place 100% of the consumer’s funds into a joint depository account at a bank.

Despite certain glaring problems with the joint account contract, the Missouri legislature preserved the structure when it passed SB1, and re-wrote Chapter 436.

The small operator often accepts the consumer’s funds for purposes of a ‘spend down’ that will allow the consumer to exclude the funds from his/her resources for public assistance. Technically, the joint account requirements are not sufficient for excluding the funds, and funeral director is required to set up the account as “for the benefit of”. In doing so, the funeral director has not complied with Chapter 436 (old or new).

Because the transaction is an accommodation, the funeral director has little incentive to incur expense. Consequently, Missouri funeral directors ‘tend’ to borrow from each other with regard to documentation. While Chapter 436 has always required a contract form specific to joint account funding, antidotal evidence suggests many funeral directors borrowed a trust funded contract form for their joint account contracts.

SB1 requires the State Board to examine or audit all preneed sellers, including funeral homes that have joint accounts but decline to become licensed as sellers. This puts Missouri’s regulators in the difficult situation of citing small operators for Chapter 436 violations despite having all of the consumer’s funds in a depository account at the bank. For the integrity of preneed reform, the State Board cannot look the other way with regard to the joint account requirements.

Rather than force the small operator into either of the remaining SB1 options, Missouri should explore a new option for small operator.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The old axiom was that it would take three consecutive legislative sessions to get a preneed bill passed. If Missouri and Illinois are indicators of the current preneed reform movement, the charm may be based not on attempts but actual bills passed by the legislature.

The Illinois Comptroller’s proposal for preneed reform, SB1682, is progressing quickly towards approval of the Governor’s amendatory veto. While the bill fails to address most of the recommendations made by the Governor’s task force, SB1682 will tighten the trusting requirements of preneed funds until comprehensive legislation is passed. Consequently, Illinois’ preneed sellers face the dual task of complying with SB1682 and negotiating the future of the preneed transaction. With the various pending lawsuits, the question is whether the Illinois death care industry has the capacity to work with regulators towards a consensus bill.

Missouri preneed funeral regulators have been slow to communicate the new requirements of that state’s new preneed law, Senate Bill No. 1. That bill was written without much cooperation from either the funeral industry or the cemetery industry, and the result is an ambiguous law that imposes requirements without sufficient consideration of practical compliance by the funeral industry. The law has been the source of tremendous confusion, and many funeral directors would rather ‘opt out’ completely. Against a backdrop of the NPS failure, regulators and funeral homes would be best served to reconcile their differences in an attempt to address SB1’s flaws.

Missouri’s cemetery industry also faces a similar legislative task. With a strategy based on the old axiom, one constituency of the Missouri cemetery industry pursued legislation that included provisions intended to provide preneed sellers an option out of SB1. That legislation included provisions objectionable to cemeteries with preneed programs, and most of the bill was scuttled at the 11th hour. The resulting bill opened the door for Missouri cemeteries to establish Chapter 214 preneed programs, but does not provide any regulatory oversight for consumer protections. The bill also leaves the Missouri cemetery industry with the prospect of being regulated under SB1.

Historically, it was the internal industry disputes that made preneed legislation so difficult to pass. Legislators would send the squabbling parties home until they could resolve their disputes. What has changed in the dynamics of preneed legislation is the role of the regulator. Frauds measured by the millions are forcing regulators to share in the accountability of preneed failures. The regulator’s agenda is now trumping the industry’s internal disputes in Illinois and Missouri.

But, the regulator’s trump card does not necessarily guaranty a law that best serves the consumers’ interests.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks