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

With two of the nation’s top ten college basketball teams, Kansans are exhibiting clear symptoms of March Madness. With Topeka located between Lawrence and Manhattan, bipartisanship may be tested as tensions mount this week with the Big 12 tournament and the NCAA seedings announcement on Sunday. When Kansas legislators resume their meetings the week of March 15th, they may hear from a third constituency that has a different ‘madness’ in mind: the Secretary of State’s cemetery legislation.

When the Secretary of State’s staff began holding hearings last June, HB 2712 and HB 2713 may not have been what they had in mind. With the intent to encourage industry input, the Secretary of State formed a committee of cemetery operators and state representatives that was to meet for an afternoon every two weeks. With an aggressive agenda in hand, the first meeting included a handful of ‘spectators’. After that initial meeting, attendance dropped and fewer cemetery operators participated in the process.

Undaunted, the Secretary of State staff held its meetings over the course of the summer and fall of 2009, and outlined the problems with enforcing Kansas’ cemetery laws: funding for audits, wholesale trusting requirements, ambivalent and uninformed fiduciaries, and underfunded cemetery trusts. At the conclusion of the committee meetings, the Secretary of State requested assistance from Kansas’ cemetery industry. When nothing concrete was offered by the industry, the Secretary of State offered options between a state-mandated trust or revisions to fix the current law. That portion of the cemetery industry that attended the meeting choose a fix of the current law.

Among the changes proposed by the legislation, the following may prove the most controversial to some cemetery operators:

• The filing of monthly reports to the Secretary of State
• A new fee based on the reported transactions
• A switch of preneed merchandise trusting from wholesale costs to 50% of retail
• A new fiduciary definition that will limit the institutions that may serve as trustee
• An expansion of the fiduciary’s duties

While these bills do not reflect what the Kansas Secretary of State had hoped to accomplish when the process began last summer, the legislation reflects the realities of the current environment: growing political pressure to provide consumers greater protections and a fragmented and diverse cemetery industry.   Despite how some operators may respond, the Secretary of State could have gone much further (and may in future years).
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The fear of SB1 drove the Missouri cemetery industry to push for Chapter 214 legislation in 2009, only to have the wheels come off at the stroke of midnight last May. While legislation was passed, the original bill was gutted, and the resulting changes were incoherent and confusing. It was no surprise that the industry would pursue a bill to correct what was done in 2009.

An industry bill was introduced in the 2010 session as SB754. However, that bill was quickly replaced by a Senate Committee Substitute. The substitute bill incorporates changes sought by the State, the speed in which the bill was produced signals regulators’ recognition that Chapter 214 reform is needed.

Over the next several weeks, the death care industry and consumers need to take a close look at SCS SB754. Legislators will only provide the parties so many attempts to ‘get it right’. And while this bill contains several needed changes, it also has provisions that beg for questions, and answers. Take preneed for an example.

Section 214.387 will govern how the cemetery industry is to sell preneed in Missouri. Prior to last year’s legislation, Chapter 214 provided minimal oversight of preneed sales of markers and services. If a cemetery wanted to sell a vault on a preneed basis, it had to comply with Chapter 436. Chapter 214 did not contemplate trust funded preneed.

Section 214.387 takes a page from the ‘old’ version of Chapter 436 by requiring Missouri cemeteries to deposit 80% of a consumer’s payments to an escrow account or a trust if the preneed contract defers delivery. Last year’s model of 214.387 first established the new trusting requirement, but did so with confusing language. So in a sense, Missouri cemeteries went from zero to eighty last year without guidelines.

SCS SB754 attempts to provide some of those guidelines, but it misses a few beats.

The 80% trusting requirement will be one of the highest in the country. Many states’ cemetery laws trust on the wholesale costs of merchandise. This poses an audit nightmare (ask the Kansas Secretary of State). The wholesale threshold is crossed somewhere around 40 to 50% of retail. Consequently, the cemetery laws generally have lower trusting requirements than that imposed on funeral homes. But the second piece of the puzzle for cemetery trusting is the income accrual provisions.

Cemeteries have cash flow requirements that differ from that of a funeral home. States’ cemetery laws reflect this by permitting the disbursement of preneed trust income. Typically, the higher the trusting percentage, the more likely income disbursements will be allowed. But, there are exceptions (Iowa for example).

So, it’s no surprise that 214.387 contemplates income distributions. However, the bill only authorizes income disbursements from escrow accounts. The bill does not include a corresponding authority for preneed trusts.

Another glitch in 214.387 would provide consumers a refund that would include half of the income earned on the account. If escrow accounts are distributing income to cemeteries, then someone would have to ‘come out of pocket’ for refunds to the consumer.

The quick solution to these 214.387 issues would be to allow both types of accounts to distribute half the annual income, leaving the balance of income in the account until the contract is canceled or performed. As such, the Missouri law would provide higher trusting safeguards than most other states.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 NPS salesmen had quite a reputation. Commission driven, some were reported to have earned a healthy six-figure salary. And, some had no prior experience in the funeral industry.

To curb the excesses committed by NPS salesmen, Missouri preneed reform bill requires preneed salesmen to be licensed, with a condition that they “have successfully passed the Missouri law examination as designated by the board”.

Since the effective date of the law (August 28th), preneed agents have been required to take the same law examination required of funeral directors. That examination has proved difficult for many preneed agent applicants, and issues were presented to the Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors at their February 4th meeting. The State Board held an open meeting by conference call on February 11th to facilitate further discussion of preneed agent licensing and the Missouri Law Test.

Two basic positions emerged during the February 11th conference call. The funeral directors’ camp views the preneed contract as the sale of a funeral, which should require the licensed funeral director. The proactive preneed seller views the preneed contract as a funding vehicle to pay for the goods and services described in the contract, which would require the salesman to be knowledgeable about the requirements of Chapter 436.

Historically, most Missouri preneed contracts were of the guaranteed variety. If the preneed contract was performed with little or no variation to the prearranged funeral, then the contract represents the purchase of a funeral. But, some families change the terms of their preneed contracts, and under such circumstances, the contract represents a funding vehicle. As more non-guaranteed contracts and final expense products become more common, fewer preneed contracts will represent the “sale of a funeral”.

For the time being, the State Board will continue to require the same law examination given to applicants for a funeral director’s license. But, is the funeral industry best served by restricting preneed agent licensing to legal testing imposed on funeral directors?
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Regulators in Missouri and Kansas will be pursuing legislation this spring for more authority in providing oversight to cemeteries. With its Burr Oak problems, Illinois can’t be too far behind.

Whether it is the economy or the unscrupulous owner, regulators are finding they lack both the expertise and authority to properly protect the cemetery consumer.

The media loves a story like the one that broke on Friday about the Maryland cemetery owner that was arrested in Texas. In 2008, Mr. Deffenbaugh was charged with felony theft, and allowed to avoid prison time with an arrangement that was to provide restitution of $1,000,000. When it came time to pay the piper in 2009, the owner staged his own death by “falling off his boat” in the Chesapeake Bay.

In contrast, brief news reports were offered about a Barrett, Missouri cemetery that faces bankruptcy after its owner died, leaving no one to continue its operation.

When regulators seek reform legislation, they have both situations in mind, but it is the “Deffenbaugh card” that wins legislative votes. Cemetery owners rail when the card is played, but it is the troubled cemetery operator that consumes the regulators’ time and resources. With regard to the ‘other’ situation, there are few solutions for failing cemeteries, other than passing the responsibility for upkeep to cities or counties (and their taxpayers).

Finding effective answers to both situations will require greater interaction between the regulator and the cemetery industry. If they are to become more effective at providing oversight, cemetery regulators must gain crucial experience that can only be derived from reputable operators. And until the regulator has a firmer grip on the industry’s better business practices, legislation will often represent a give and take exchange that may span years until a workable solution is reached.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Implementing new regulatory requirements is a difficult and thankless job. Businesses hate change when it comes to government interference, and (most) regulators understand this. Accordingly, regulators typically prefer to implement incremental changes. In contrast to other industries, regulatory changes have been less frequent within the death care industry because legislators and regulators don’t understand the business. This came to an end for Missouri when NPS galvanized a legislature into re-writing the book on preneed, and then saddling the State Board with the task of implementing new mandates for licensure, oversight and enforcement.

There was no question what the State Board’s first priority under SB1 had to be: emergency rules to satisfy the new preneed licensure requirements. Until the law went into effect on August 28, 2009, the State Board lacked the authority to issue preneed licenses. But once the law went into effect, funeral homes were prohibited from selling preneed without a license. Licensing an entire industry at the stroke of midnight was beyond the Board’s limited resources.

As of February 4th, the State Board was five months into the mission, and faced a growing list of SB1 issues. Having addressed the immediate licensure issues (more or less), the Board took a step back to frame a preliminary approach to what may prove to be its top priority: financial examinations.

The State Board approved a plan that would involve an internal unit of 4 to 5 employees that would gather and monitor preneed transactions. The plan would include a period of training to develop the expertise needed to reduce the reliance on independent auditors, and thereby reduce the fees being charged to the industry.  The Board's decision is consistent with Scenario 2 of the Small Business Impact Statement filed with its emergency fees rule.

Determining that “the money is there” has been the priority in Nebraska and Iowa, and now, has also become the priority for Kansas’ cemetery regulator. The challenge for the Missouri and Kansas regulators will be the implementation of an effective, but efficient, system of providing financial oversight to a diverse and fragmented industry.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The future of Missouri’s examination of preneed books and records will begin to take shape on February 4th. The State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors has put this issue at the top of its agenda for Thursday’s meeting.

Regulatory review of Missouri’s preneed industry has been dormant for almost 15 years, and SB1 now imposes a regular examination of preneed sellers’ records. The scope, and the procedures, of the review process may take months to determine, but Missouri funeral directors should anticipate reporting requirements that impact all preneed contracts subject to Chapter 436.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The ICCFA’s November Magazine included an article by Craig Martin that provides good advice for all death care trusts. Death care trusts are notoriously bad performers, and if operators are to improve investment performance they need to work more closely with their fiduciaries and portfolio managers. Mr. Martin offers 5 tips that are equally applicable to preneed trusts and endowment care trusts:

1. Know your investment guidelines (and statutory limitations)
2. Communicate with the investment manager on a regular basis
3. Use a professional fund manager
4. Include growth in the asset allocation
5. Explore the availability of a master trust

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

With some industry members having already declared the preneed transaction dead, a recent AARP bulletin reports that the patient is not only alive, but it is regaining its strength. But, the reason for increasing preneed sales will only bedevil many death care operators: the rising costs of funerals.

Operators who face preneed competition will have difficulty swearing off the guaranteed contract if consumer advocates such as the AARP begin to recommend the transaction as a way for seniors to control future costs.

While the AARP’s stance on preneed may be moderating, the bulletin offers advice that consumers should heed:

• Visit at least three funeral homes and ask lots of questions.
• Ask for a detailed price list of products and services.
• Examine the insurance policy or trust documents that fund the preneed contract (even have a lawyer review them).
• Make family members aware of the funeral plans, and keep all documents and receipts in an accessible place.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A “Spend Down” is the transaction where a person seeking public assistance transfers money or insurance to a funeral home to avoid having the “asset” count as a resource. It is a commonly held perception that the Spend Down accounts for many preneed contract purchases. But should all Spend Downs trigger the state preneed law intended to protect the consumer? That question has been the source of disagreement and confusion for Missouri funeral directors since last July when the State Board first began to implement SB1.

The Missouri controversy swirls around the Spend Down that involves an existing insurance policy. It is a fairly common occurrence for a family to approach the funeral director with a small life policy ($10,000 or less) with a request that the policy be held until welfare applicant’s death (when it is to be applied to funeral expenses). Missouri’s public assistance policies are interpreted at the county level, and the result has been widely diverging requirements. Some Missouri counties require the funeral director to provide a contract to the family to evidence the assignment was not made as a gift. The contract requirement also serves to protect the funeral director by setting out the terms and conditions underlying the assignment. For example, the funeral director may not necessarily promise the insurance policy is being accepted as the sole consideration for the future costs. If the policy proves worthless, the family will still be obligated to pay for the funeral.

The Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors has grappled with whether this transaction should be subject to the requirements of SB1. During it’s initial SB1 meetings, the State Board leaned towards excluding the Spend Down from SB1, but in subsequent meetings expressed an intent to include the transaction if a contract were involved.

When the family approaches the funeral director with an existing insurance policy or certificate deposit, and the funeral director receives no compensation in the form of a commission, the Spend Down represents an accommodation to the consumer. Under such circumstances, a regulator should consider whether the licensing requirements are sufficient to protect the consumer. Imposing the requirements of SB1, or any preneed statute with additional fees or costs, on an accommodation transaction burdens both the consumer and the funeral home.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks