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

The Texas preneed regulator may have left some consumers scratching their head. On September 16th, the Department of Banking issued a press release that a cease and desist order had been issued to prohibit a Lubbock funeral home from selling trust-funded prepaid funeral contracts. But, a Lubbock newspaper reported comments from the Department of Banking that the funeral home could still sell insurance-funded prepaid funeral contracts. So, how is the funeral home can sell one form of preneed but not another?

With insurance-funded preneed, the funeral home typically acts as an agent for the insurance company. The insurance company provides a preneed contract form, and establishes procedures regarding the administration of premiums. The insurance company also provides consumer statements and regulatory reports. Essentially, the funeral home has a minor role in the preneed transaction once the insurance application is completed.

With trust-funded preneed, funeral homes either act as their own ‘seller’ or they contract with a third party sales organization. In many states (such as Missouri), the state association master trust is a third party seller and assumes the seller’s compliance responsibilities. Those responsibilities include contract compliance (preneed contract form and trust agreement), consumer payment accounting, trust allocations, recordkeeping, and regulatory reports.

Apparently, the Lubbock funeral home acts as its own seller. DOB auditors cited the funeral home for poor recordkeeping, and the failure to deposit consumer payments. There is nothing in the press release (or news article) to suggest the funeral home was guilty of any criminal act or that preneed funds are missing. It is quite possible the funeral home’s inadequate records contributed to its failure to make the required deposits.

The funeral profession is on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and providing service to families comes before everything else. And, for many funeral directors, preneed compliance is an intrusion on the time that should be devoted to families.

But, regulators are warning that if the services offered to families include trust-funded preneed, the funeral home cannot push the preneed paperwork into the bottom drawer.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Regulators in California, Missouri and Kansas have already implemented strategies that are intended to make preneed fiduciaries more accountable to the consumer. Over the past few weeks, this blog has covered new reporting requirements in Missouri and the audit drama playing out in California. In Kansas, the fiduciary for a failed cemetery has been sued for various breaches of state law. Because the pool of experienced preneed fiduciaries is relatively small, the events transpiring west of the Mississippi River will influence many Illinois fiduciaries to spend some time with SB1682.

One SB1682 requirement that has already caused a rift between funeral homes and preneed fiduciaries is the annual statement requirement. Illinois law now requires the trustee to report to the preneed purchaser receipts, disbursements, and “an inventory of the trust” (including expenses).

Recent statements reflected substantial account decreases, and that has strained the relationship between the funeral home and some of its consumers. While funeral homes would rather avoid inflaming consumers with news about deteriorating accounts, the fiduciary is bound by law to provide the consumer an annual accounting.

IFDA members can deflect some consumer complaints, but eventually, the buck will stop with the funeral director. To regain consumer confidence, funeral directors should be prepared to show they have a plan for the funds entrusted with them.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On September 9th, Missouri’s State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors conducted its first public meeting since forwarding new (and extensive) reporting requirements to preneed funeral sellers and providers. In no mood to entertain complaints from the industry, the Board advised licensees to “do their best”. In response to criticism of the new trust reporting requirements, the Board advised that fiduciaries are only being required to certify individual account data regarding transactions for which they have oversight responsibilities. Fiduciaries are not being required to certify the preneed contract data for which the seller is responsible (purchaser and beneficiary names and addresses).

What the preneed fiduciary is being required to certify is aggregate trust data regarding deposits, income and expenses. With regard to each preneed contract, the trustee must also certify the 5% origination fee and 10% sales expense that have been paid to the seller, and the market value of each contract. The State Board advised the industry that these reporting requirements will likely change next year. For example, the current report does not contemplate the amount deposited to trust per contract, or whether the preneed contract is guaranteed or not (which is necessary to determine whether the 10% sales expense is appropriate).

The course of reporting requirement changes will be influenced by the industry’s efforts as a whole to comply with the October 31st renewal requirements, and the January 31st voluntary reporting request.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

California funeral directors face a September 13th deadline that could have substantial financial consequences, including the repayment of trust distributions.

A July 1st letter sent by the California’s Cemetery & Funeral Bureau to funeral homes in the California Master Trust outlined the regulator’s rejection of the Association responses regarding the Master Trust audit. An impatient Bureau gave funeral directors 3 weeks to respond. That deadline was quickly extended to August 11th. Then the week before the August 11th deadline, the Bureau granted another extension to September 13th.  On the eve of the deadline, there is nothing on the Bureau's website to suggest another extension is in the offering.

The Bureau is demanding several significant changes to be made to the administration of the California Master Trust. But one demand that may prove problematic for the Association will be the Bureau’s demand that funeral homes repay to consumers’ trusts the administration fees that have been paid out over the years. The Bureau has rejected the Association’s proposal for prospective procedures to document the fees.

Within the past year, Nebraska preneed sellers were also called upon to replenish trusts for the method in which income taxes were paid. The Nebraska examinations also went back several years, and involved substantial amounts.

With new reporting requirements, Missouri funeral homes will also have to explain trust and joint account shortages. Some Missouri funeral directors have failed to appreciate how Missouri law distinguishes between trusting and joint accounts. Missouri’s old preneed law allowed sellers who used trusts to retain 20% of the consumer’s payments, and to withdraw income (subject to the mark to market) requirement. Those provisions don’t apply to joint accounts. With regard to the new Missouri law, sellers also need to grasp that the 10% sales expense is permitted only with regard to trust contracts that are guaranteed. With regard to Pre-SB1 trusts, sellers could be held accountable for income, taxes and expense distributions that cause the trust to drop below aggregate deposits.

Illinois preneed sellers have a similar limitation on their claim to the 5/15% permitted under their preneed law. While the lawsuits that have embroiled the IFDA claim about 1/3 of the master trust’s contracts were non-guaranteed, it’s not clear the funeral homes made that distinction when claiming their ‘administrative fee’.

For those funeral directors who participate in a master trust, the California drama is worth watching. While the Association is crucial to negotiating a resolution, the Bureau has taken its fight to the individual funeral homes. Will other state’s regulators follow suit?
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks