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

The Scarborough Council just announced increases in their funeral, cremation and burial prices. There are going to be nearly 80 different levels of charging Some of the charges depend on whether they involve cremation, burial, the times when funerals take place, the use of the service chapel and scattering the remains and whether the remains are those of a child or adult. Interment prices will depend on whether the rights are for 100 years, or less, and the depth of the grave.

Makes one wonder if the Brits have a GPL requirement?

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Iowa had not one, but two personal preference bills pending before its Legislature for the 2007/08 term: SF 473 and HF 2088.   The Senate version, SF 473, was backed by Iowa’s attorneys, and the House version, HF 2088, was backed by the Iowa Funeral Directors Association. 

What caught my attention about these bills was the IFDA statement published by the Des Moines Register on February 22nd. The death care industry would have been better served if the IFDA had given more thought to their position against SF 473. The IFDA statement started with the following:

I must clarify your Feb. 14 article, "Bill Gives Deceased Control of Remains." Iowa funeral directors have always believed funerals are about loved ones gathering to commemorate the deceased person's memory. Funeral ceremonies are not about the dead forcing their intentions on loved ones.

There’s no argument that funerals have been for the living. It is a ritual that is meant to help survivors to take the next step on life without the individual who just died. But how can the IFDA reconcile the highlighted statement with the preneed transaction that most funeral homes endorse.  Yet, I believe the IFDA correctly identified the issue that should be addressed before a preneed contract is ever signed:

If someone has specific requests for his or her funeral, those must be communicated to their loved ones. Funeral directors bring families together to decide how to remember the dead. SF 473, backed by the Iowa State Bar Association, allows a "final disposition directive," which forces everyone to listen to a document, and not to the emotional needs of survivors.

The [attorneys bar] association's proposal could conflict with other legal instruments. What if the decedent's will, pre-need funeral contract and final disposition all request burial, but in different cemeteries? What if the final disposition designates some distant cousin to be in charge?

The IFDA is asking the right questions, but failing to look in the mirror to understand how the death care industry is contributing to the problem. 

First of all, each individual should have the right to control the disposition of his or her body. Period. But in contrast to our ‘inalienable’ rights, we are powerless to defend the right to control our own disposition.   After we cash in our chips (pardon the pun), we are completely dependent on someone else respecting our ‘instructions’. Most individuals seem to have a strong personal preference for what should be done with their body. In a sense, there seems to be a certain selfish aspect to one’s last act or wish being one of “this is what I want”.   Unfortunately, many preneed programs seem to cater to this self-indulgence. 

What may be galling some funeral directors is that the written document, whether it is disposition directive or a preneed contract for cremation, may not be in the best interests of the surviving family members.

First preneed, and now enforceable disposition directives, are underscoring that the role of the funeral ritual needs to be for both the deceased and the living. But to accomplish such a goal, the individual must overcome the reluctance (or denial) that precludes the discussion of mortality with family or friends. 

Preneed introduced our older generation to the issue of their own mortality, but hasn’t provided them the resources to share fears and values with the next generation.  And now the death care industry is being forced to redefine the preneed transaction from being about “me”, to being about “us”. To incorporate family members into the process, key decisions about the funeral must be deferred. Individuals will continue to want to address the financial burdens of the funeral, but the industry needs to become receptive to allowing the family the freedom to reach a common decision about what ritual is best for everyone. 

Bill Tammeus, a Kansas City Star columnist on issues of spirituality, addressed these issues from a theologian’s perspective in a September 2, 2006, column titled “The Cremains of the Day”.  

So which Iowa bill should be favored? In this situation, the attorney’s version provides a lower hurdle for the individual wishing to establish an enforceable disposition directive, and therefore I would endorse it over the IFDA bill. SF 473 should better protect the interests of the elderly and the gay community. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

One of the many issues facing regulators in the Clayton Smart debacle was the surrender of thousands of Forethought life insurance policies by a Forest Hill preneed trustee. New light will probably be shed on this issue with revelations that Robert Nelms and Clayton Smart may each have been using the same financial management company: Security Financial Management Company. One needs to consider whether an investment advisor looked at the insurance being held by the preneed trust and boasted ‘we can do better’.

Preneed funeral contracts are generally funded by either insurance or trusts.  Each has its advantages and disadvantages.  However, the respective advantages are generally lost when the preneed trust holds insurance products as investments.  (I will exclude cemetery preneed trusts from this discussion because cemetery merchandise is often delivered prior to the purchaser's death, thus making life insurance impractical.)

 Insurance gets the nod as the preferable funding vehicle for portability, tax consequence (to the purchaser) and consumer savings (if you're under the age of 60-something and in relatively good health).  Trust funding gets the nod for universal availability, long-term performance (if the trust has sufficient assets to permit diversified investments) and refund rights (okay, okay, put the state law variations aside for a minute).  However, each type of funding has its unique 'costs', and combining them may cost the funeral home and consumer in the long run. 

Trustees were first induced to accept insurance products in the late 1980s when annuities were purchased for trusts that could not comply with the retroactive application of Revenue Ruling 87-127.   Many of these trusts lacked the information required to report income to the purchasers.  As a grantor trust, preneed trusts could hold an annuity and have the contract's increase be deferred for tax purposes until the contract's maturity.    

Once the camel's nose was in the tent, insurance companies began to market life insurance and annuities to death care companies as solutions to lagging trust performance.  Corporate trustees often consign smaller preneed trusts to fixed income investments in a conservative approach to avoid market fluctuations. In this era of relatively low interest rates, insurance products can offer a better return than conservative bonds and government securities. And, there is the temptation of a commission on the conversion of the trust's assets to insurance. 

However, insurance products represent problems to the corporate trustee.  As demonstrated by Clayton Smart's short-sighted actions, cashing in life insurance before the purchaser's death will have a significant adverse impact on the trust's value.  Cash surrender values on 70-something year old insureds are typically low.   And if the trustee does hold the policy to maturity, how are the insurance proceeds to be taxed?  Annuities simply defer the income aspect of the contract until maturity.  Life insurance proceeds are not taxable to an individual beneficiary, but are those proceeds taxable to the trust?   More than likely, the answer is yes.  The proceeds must generally flow through the trust, thus adding time and cost to the administration. 

Funeral directors need to consider that rolling a preneed trust into insurance is probably a one-way transaction. Once it has been done, it will be a matter of a few years before an investment advisor recommends that its time to cash those policies in. Two wrongs do not make a right.   In many states, it would be difficult to justify a rollover in the first place.  Funeral directors will only compound any error made if they change their minds and cash the policies in. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Kentucky’s city administrators claim that with House Bill 369 they can now see the light at the end of the tunnel. For the past 20 years, municipal cemeteries in the Blue Grass State have been forced to operate under the same rules that apply to commercial cemeteries when it came to perpetual care funding. For that period, some municipalities built up some sizeable PC trusts. But as tax revenues declined over the past few years, those PC trusts became enticing to city administrators looking for ways to cover mounting cemetery expenses. These municipalities are telling the Kentucky legislature that not only should they be allowed to tap these funds for cemetery improvements, but that their cemeteries should be exempt from perpetual care requirements. The first objective makes sense, but the second does not.

Generally, state perpetual care laws restrict what the trust can invest in, and limit distributions to interest and dividends. These laws seek to impose conservative standards that will ensure the longevity of the fund. However, these restrictions also handcuff cemetery operators that must plan for the long term when facing capital improvements such as streets, lights and drainage. When the circumstances warrant improvements, cemetery operators and trustees should be afforded a mechanism to seek extraordinary distributions. HB 269 provides municipal cemeteries that mechanism. However the bill does not address the needs of other cemeteries, or to provide trustees the latitude to diversify trust investments so as to better fund projected improvement needs. 

HB 269 also takes a wrong turn when it comes to exempting municipalities from Kentucky’s perpetual care requirements. If municipalities do not require perpetual care fund contributions, the expense of cemetery maintenance will eventually be borne by taxpayers. Cemetery corporations understand perfectly the problems municipalities are having with revenues and expenses. Cemetery corporations have been forced to raise the price of burial spaces, expand the sale of merchandise and to become more proactive with preneed. It is no secret that the cost of a municipal grave space lags far beyond that charged by a corporate cemetery. Rather than avoid the discipline required by a properly funded endowed care fund, municipalities need to consider the revenue side of the equation. A recent American Cemetery article suggests that municipal cemeteries need to adopt the preneed business strategies of corporate cemeteries. I don’t think that advice is practical, but municipalities do need to explore options other than their taxpayer base. For those of us who choose cremation, or who purchase a burial space at a corporate cemetery, why should our taxes subsidize a municipal cemetery? 

About a year ago, a funeral director wrote to the Funeral Monitor to complain that corporate cemeteries are driving up the costs of burials. In support of his complaint, the funeral director made a price comparison between the burial spaces at corporate cemeteries and those at the municipal cemetery. As demonstrated by the Kentucky legislation and the comments of municipal administrators, these comparisons are not of apples to apples. Using distorted facts to blame a competitor for the rising cost of funerals and burial does a disservice to the entire death care industry.  

It has been almost 18 years since I drafted my first perpetual care bill. That initial effort took the tack of required disclosures about perpetual care funding, but allowed certain types of cemeteries to opt out of perpetual care.   Today, I think perpetual care funding should be required of all cemeteries.  

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Funeral Monitor and the Funeral Service Insider write to different segments of the death care industry, and rarely report on the same topics.  So when each makes National Prearrangement Services their lead story in late January, readers should take notice.

NPS is a company that has always pushed the envelope.  With preneed laws as ambiguous as they are, there is plenty of room for wiggle when it comes to compliance.  In the past, competitors would point a finger in NPS' direction and complain about a level playing field.   Funeral directors generally stayed out of that fray because they were being paid by NPS.  With the issues being reported by trade journals about NPS, funeral directors need to reevaluate their agreements with the third party seller. 

To NPS' credit, they can bring economies of scale to bear on a casket company that small funeral homes can not.  But what about the funeral home's existing agreements with casket vendors?   What happens if NPS' relationship with the Chinese sours in five years?   Does the NPS proposal put funeral homes at risk in satisfying the terms of the preneed contracts?  In one perspective, NPS has put the funeral director and the preneed purchaser in the same boat, that being dependent on NPS and its casket vendor being able to perform at some point in the future.

Funeral directors should heed the advice that Josh Slocum gave consumers after the AARP published its notorious RIP Off article:  take your contract to an attorney for advice about your rights. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks