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

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released its latest report on the state of state regulation of the death care industry.  As it did in 2003, the GAO selected a handful of states to review in depth, and Illinois was one of those states for 2011 report.  The Illinois review is set out as Appendix IV of the GAO report, and paints a bleak picture of preneed oversight in the Land of Lincoln. 

The Illinois review advises that the Office of the Comptroller has 10 staff positions and 10 field audit positions to provide supervision of preneed and crematories.  While it is the Comptroller’s intent to audit each preneed seller at least once every five years, budget constraints have limited audits to those businesses with the most preneed.  Otherwise, the Comptroller will target sellers based on annual reports that either reflects ‘abnormal fluctuations’ or the lack of a corporate trustee. 

And when the Comptroller does find problems, her staff complains that the law provides them little power to address the situation.  The GAO was advised that the disciplinary process is extremely slow and costly.  That latter comment should raise some eyebrows in Illinois.  It was the Comptroller’s office (albeit a prior officeholder) that pushed through amendments to the Funeral or Burial Funds Act just a short two years ago, and now the staff claims the law has no teeth.

The Illinois review ends with the Comptroller’s office on the defense.  Industry representatives challenged whether the Comptroller’s 2010 legislation provided any additional protections.  The Comptroller responds that “there is no way to be sure if the changes to the laws would have prevented these kinds of incidents, but that there may have been the ability them earlier”.  (Obviously someone left out a few words, but they also failed to confer across the hall with that other someone who was more honest about the law’s lack of teeth.)

The review concludes with the statement “[F]urther, state regulators in Illinois stress the importance of consumer education and whistleblower protections to help prevent and detect future problems.”  If the Comptroller lacks funding and enforcement powers under the current law, who is fooling who?  Can additional legislation be too far away?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

For the past few years, some Kansas cemeteries have been getting nasty grams from their regulator about their care fund trustee’s treatment capital gains taxes. Kansas, like most states, requires a portion of each grave space sale (interment right) to be contributed to a fund or trust for the future care of the cemetery. Kansas law calls that fund a permanent maintenance fund. Missouri law calls it an endowed care trust. In some states it is defined as a perpetual care trust.

Despite what the fund is called, these state laws universally seek to provide the cemetery a source of income to pay for the upkeep of graves (while keeping the contributions in tact). That latter objective, protecting the contributions, brings cemeteries and regulators into conflict when the fund realizes capital gains and losses. The Kansas cemetery regulator has been taking the conflict a step further by interpreting the law to preclude the trustee from paying taxes or fees out of capital gains.

The Kansas regulators (like many of their peers) perceive a ‘looming’ problem with cemeteries: abandonment and the eventual transfer to the municipality or county. Cemeteries are dependent upon the cash flow that comes from space sales (and the accompanying interment fees and marker sales). When a cemetery runs out of spaces, grave maintenance will be completely dependent upon income from the care fund. To minimize the financial burden placed on the county, the Kansas regulator has adopted a very strict interpretation of the law for the purpose of preserving the care fund for the day the cemetery transfers to the government. This interpretation not only precludes the fund from distribution capital gains earnings, but also the trustee’s payment of taxes and fees from the earnings. The regulator reasons that capital gains must be allocated to principal, and the law forbids all distribution of principal.

This puts the cemetery into a bind. The staple of care fund investments, the fixed income security, has been bearing returns of less than 2% for years. When trust expenses are netted from those returns, there is little left to distribute to the cemetery. Necessity has dictated that these funds begin investing in equities. But, the Kansas philosophy would penalize the cemetery. Not only is the cemetery prohibited from using the equity earnings, the cemetery must also pay the taxes incurred on those earnings (reducing what is received from the care fund). The only ‘winner’ is the county. Or is it? If the eventual abandonment takes years, and the cemetery has been deprived income for upkeep and repairs, isn’t the county getting the property in worse shape?
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Every funeral director has faced the situation where Mrs. Smith comes in with an insurance policy and her funeral plans. Often, Mrs. Smith has gone to trouble of designating the funeral home as the policy beneficiary before having discussed her plans with the director. Often funeral directors file the policy and plan away until Mrs. Smith’s time of need. Frequently, the file includes nothing more than Mrs. Smith’s policy and funeral preferences, and this is troubling for Missouri’s new preneed audit staff.

Although Missouri’s preneed reforms went into effect more than 2 years ago, the new examination process has gotten off to a slow start. The first hurdle was funding. The new law imposed a $36 per preneed contract fee. New licensing fees were also imposed. However, these fees were tied to annual reports and renewals that were not due until October 31, 2010.

The Division of Professional Registration has also had the task of hiring preneed examiners and establishing audit guidelines. Defining those audit guidelines has proven difficult due to fact Missouri has hundreds of funeral home sellers that have been operating with little regulatory input or oversight for 25 years. Consequently, every single examination poses its own unique issues. But the one issue that must be surfacing with regularity is Mrs. Smith and her insurance policy.

After ‘practicing’ on the State Board’s industry members, the examinations began in earnest this past summer. By the Board’s September meeting, Mrs. Smith and her insurance policy were on the agenda. The staff floated a proposed regulation regarding a definition of preneed that would trigger Chapter 436 reporting requirements when Mrs. Smith walked through the funeral home’s door. Once the funeral director was put on notice of the insurance beneficiary designation, he must either report it or take action to reverse the designation.

The staff’s reasoning is that a contract has formed when the funeral director is put on notice of the policy designation. That contract is for a funeral arrangement that is not immediately needed, and therefore falls within the definition set out in Section 436.504(7). The staff further argues that this interpretation is needed to protect the consumer when the only evidence of the contract that exists was a ‘handshake’. While the staff has a point regarding the risks of the handshake, this transaction falls outside the legislative intent of SB1.

SB1 regulates the industry’s ‘sale’ of preneed contracts where consumer funds are paid to the funeral home or cemetery. The law’s intent is to make sure the preneed seller deposits those funds to trust or a joint account, or pays them to an insurance company. In contrast, Mrs. Smith may have purchased her Prudential Life policy from the same agent who sold her car and home insurance.

But, the staff’s concerns are not without merit. If Mrs. Smith’s children do not know of either the insurance policy or the handshake with the funeral director, they may go to another funeral home. The staff also asks what it is to stop the funeral director from retaining the insurance proceeds when the family has gone to a competitor.

To ensure Mrs. Smith’s wishes are fulfilled, the funeral home should document the policy designation with a written contract (which provides for a return of the proceeds if a different funeral home is used). The contract should also spell out the promises with regard to prices.

However, Missouri consumers would be better served if SB1 fees were spent towards audit procedures that focus on preneed sales, and not Mrs. Smith and her insurance policy. Missouri’s Chapter 333 provides the State Board with authority to implement additional protections when the funeral director accepts an insurance policy in exchange for a handshake.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks