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

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

The funeral industry may grumble about the FTC’s Funeral Rule, but two disclosures required by that law play important roles in the preneed transaction. The general price list is often used by funeral homes as a tool for comparing prices with the competition. And when a prearranged funeral is performed, the statement of goods and services can be used to demonstrate the savings a family received by virtue of the preneed contract’s price protections.

Consumer advocates also utilize the general price list as a tool to educate the public on funeral costs. Periodic price surveys are facilitated by the Funeral Rule requirements. In an effort to expand its information base, the Kansas City chapter of the Funeral Consumer Alliance recently made a request of the metropolitan area’s cemeteries. However, a significant number of the cemeteries did not respond.

While some cemeteries may have been challenged to respond due to staffing issues or a lack of resources, there were non-respondents who were not comfortable making a public disclosure of what they charge. These types of disclosures are at The Bereaved Consumers Bill of Rights Act. Cemeteries are not subject to the Funeral Rule disclosure requirements, and the bill sponsored by Illinois Representative Bobby Rush would change that.

Representative Rush’s bill is a product of the Burr Oak cemetery tragedy, which had little to do with disclosures about the costs of cemetery property, merchandise and services. Regardless, the Burr Oak circumstances have been used to justify legislation for an expansion of the Funeral Rule to the cemetery industry. The cemetery industry has strongly opposed the legislation, citing that the penalties far outweigh the benefits to the consumers. Funeral trade groups have generally endorsed the bill. The funeral industry’s reasoning can be simply stated as what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

The cemetery industry’s objections to the expansion of the Funeral Rule have merit. Fines for technical violations are substantial, and could be devastating to smaller cemeteries. And, Federal enforcement of the Funeral Rule has been spotty at best.

But just as the KC branch of the Funeral Consumer Alliance has found out, gathering pricing information about cemeteries is difficult to do in the absence of the general price list requirement. The ICCFA posted model recommendations more than 13 years ago, but cemeteries have been slow to embrace them. Many cemeteries have also been slow to implement preneed sales programs. Economic survival dictates that cemeteries become more proactive regarding preneed. With that move will come the need for the disclosures required by the Funeral Rule.

The Kansas City chapter of the FCA will hold its annual Day of the Dead meeting to discuss the results of its cemetery price survey, and to press similar issues with this author. To download the KC FCA newsletter (and cemetery survey results) click here.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

When a cemetery operator and the regulator get crossways with each other, the threat to close the cemetery is often countered with the question of whether the regulator is going to step in and perform the burials. And when the regulator sticks to his/her guns, the results are often similar to that seen in Dunkirk, Maryland.

One family has waited more than a month to bury a loved one. From the quote given a local news station, their wrath is clearly aimed at the court and the regulator:

We’re going to remember the amount of days that she sat decomposing in the funeral home because of the judge here and the cemetery oversight committee.

The story also provided the cemetery owner’s comments, which suggest the cemetery’s license was revoked over a petty paperwork dispute, and that the regulator’s actions have driven the cemetery into foreclosure.

Most cemetery operators will lend a sympathetic ear to this owner’s complaints. Many operators tend to regard regulators as intrusive, and incompetent with regard to the death care business. But, when you look beyond the news reports that would not seem to be the case in this dispute.

The Maryland Office of Cemetery Oversight works in tandem with an Advisory Council of Cemetery Operations. The agency’s website explains:
 

The Advisory Council on Cemetery Operations is composed of 11 members selected by the Secretary of the Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation. Of the 11 members:

• Three shall be registered cemeterians representing the for-profit cemetery industry;
• One shall be a registered cemeterian representing a non-profit cemetery;
• One shall be a registered seller from a monument company;
• One shall be a representative from a religious cemetery; and
• Five shall be consumer members. 

The Advisory Council is required by Code to meet at least once per year to provide advice to the Secretary and the Director. However, the Council typically meets monthly to discuss various issues facing the death care industry. These meetings are open to the public and are held at the DLLR Offices located at 500 North Calvert Street, in Baltimore. You are invited and encouraged to attend and participate in discussions that affect the cemetery and burial goods professions.

Missouri once had an advisory committee for cemetery regulation, but operators lost interest. Prior to recent reform, the law had no teeth, and the industry had little incentive to participate. Kansas also toyed with the concept a few years ago, but also failed to get much input from the industry. But, the minutes posted to the website for the Maryland Office of Cemetery Oversight reflect active participation by industry representatives.

So, if the Maryland Office of Cemetery Oversight has some clue of what it’s doing, did it act in an intrusive manner?

The operator’s comments indicate disciplinary actions were taken in 2010, and the cemetery’s license was revoked a year ago. While the Office had brought suit in 2010, the matter was closed until 2011. When the court proceedings were reopened, the parties entered into a consent order which allowed the cemetery some room to continue operations. But within a few weeks, the Office went back to court seeking an order to close the operator down.

Other than this dispute, the Maryland court records reflect the Office of Cemetery Oversight having resorted to court action twice before. So, there are no court records to suggest the OCO has been intrusive on Maryland’s cemeteries.

Consequently, the family’s reaction to the situation seems misplaced. The foreclosure filings indicate the cemetery had significant debts. The OCO had sought at-need and preneed records from the cemetery, and cemetery was not responding. A compromise may have been offered, but failed. The regulator had few options but to pull the license, which precluded lot sales and interment services, and that proved the death blow to the company.

Unfortunately, the industry may see this scenario playing out more frequently than we care to acknowledge.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

We don’t like to be reminded of our mortality. Cemetery operators face this issue with many marker and monument sales. An illness may lead a husband and wife to begin making plans, which often includes the purchase of a grave space and a marker. But, it is difficult for many individuals to view a marker complete except for a date of death. Consequently, it is common for the couple to defer delivery of the marker until some future date. Unfortunately, some cemeteries (or monument dealers) go out of business, or change ownership, and the marker goes undelivered.

Until the law changed in Missouri in 2010, cemeteries were required to either deliver the marker within a reasonable time, or place 110% of the wholesale cost of the marker in a segregated account. The Missouri law now requires cemeteries to trust or escrow 80% of the marker’s purchase price when delivery is deferred. The new law presents two dilemmas for the cemetery.

In the situation where the marker is to be paid with installments, the cemetery will often defer delivery until the purchase price is paid in full (or at least until the cost of the marker has been received). Many consumers need the flexibility of installment payments to meet the costs of the marker. However, the cemetery has little recourse if the family ceases to make payments, except to defer delivery of the marker. Under the new Missouri law, cemeteries will be required to deposit 80% of those payments to trust or escrow, even if the contract only involves a 12-month installment period, and a prompt delivery on the last payment. This will add another layer of expense to the marker sale.

For the consumer who does not want to see his/her name on the marker, the cemetery also has the dilemma of rising costs. The costs of granite and bronze have risen dramatically over recent years, and show no signs of leveling off. With a marker, the cemetery has a product that it may be willing and able to delivery, but may be forced to defer, and in doing so, is also forced to watch the profit of the transaction being eroded over time.

Consumers who need the flexibility of installment payments should not be surprised if cemeteries pass on the additional costs imposed by Missouri’s new law. Similarly, consumers who don’t want to see their name on the marker (for which they have already paid) may also be required to bear additional expenses when delivery is deferred.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It is a bit of déjà vu for Kansas cemeteries. Legislation to increase preneed trusting and to require monthly reporting was introduced in the Kansas House. But HB 2240 will look familiar to those cemetery corporations that participated in 2009 and 2010 cemetery legislative meetings conducted by the Kansas Secretary of State.

As previously reported on this blog, the Kansas Secretary of State is seeking monthly reporting so that troubled cemeteries can be identified sooner. But, even the largest cemetery corporations claim that such reporting requirements would be burdensome.

The Kansas cemetery regulator is motivated by the experience of recent cemetery failures, and the need to impose requirements intended to keep the cemetery out of receivership, or as a ward of the state. As the law currently stands, regulators have few options until the cemetery fails (i.e., is unable to honor its preneed obligations).
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Missouri cemeteries received a brief questionnaire last week from their primary regulator. The Office of Endowed Care Cemeteries (the OECC) has responsibility for enforcement of Chapter 214, the Missouri law that governs endowed care requirements and preneed sold by licensed cemeteries. The OECC would seem to be sizing up cemeteries as candidates for Chapter 214 preneed audits. If a cemetery is selling preneed pursuant to Chapters 333 and 436, the OECC can cross the cemetery off its list. But the likelihood is that most cemeteries selling preneed have opted away from Chapter 436.

What may not be apparent to consumers is the fact that many Missouri cemeteries claim exemption from Chapter 214 endowed care licensing requirements. Some cemeteries site exemption from these license requirements based on religious affiliations, or because they restrict grave space sales to family or association members. These ‘exempt’ cemeteries face new regulation requirements if they sell merchandise and services that would be deemed “preneed” by Chapter 436 (and the State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors).

Consumers can conduct their own survey of a cemetery offering to sell burial services, monuments, urns and vaults before there is a death.

If the consumer is purchasing a monument or marker, and is making a single payment, ask whether the contract complies with Section 214.385 and provides for prompt delivery.

If the purchase of the monument or marker is being made with installments, with delivery deferred to the future, ask the cemetery for documentation regarding the trust or escrow account used for the payments. The cemetery will have to either comply with Section 214.387 of Chapter 214 or Section 436.435 Chapter 436.

If the cemetery is offering to sell burial services or vaults prior to a death, a portion of the consumer payments should be deposited to either a 214.387 trust or a 436.435 trust. If the cemetery claims to be exempt, or can’t answer the question, the consumer has reason to be concerned. Such concerns should be addressed to either the OECC or the State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors.

Finally, ask the cemetery about their endowed care license. If it does not have a Chapter 214 license, ask to see its Chapter 333 preneed seller license. If the cemetery is not licensed as an endowed care cemetery, it has no option but to be licensed as a preneed seller under Chapter 333.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In the end, Clayton will likely spend many of his final days in a federal penitentiary. The Memphis Commercial Appeal outlines the plea bargain to be entered by Clayton Smart to conclude criminal investigations in Tennessee, Oklahoma and Michigan.

Comments made to the Commercial Appeal story express outrage with the prosecutors and the plea bargain. Consumers will not be made whole, nor will Mr. Smart be summarily executed.

The costs of the Smart investigation and prosecution have to be staggering. The transactions span three states, multiple state regulatory jurisdictions and various local and Federal prosecutors. With the prospect of securing testimony against all of those who abetted Mr. Smart, prosecutors have moved to bring the matters to faster conclusion.

It is unlikely that three different courts will agree that Mr. Smart’s 4 years at 201 Poplar has paid his debt to society. His cooperation will count for something, but the harm to consumers can’t be ignored.  

With budgets in decline, regulatory agencies and prosecutors need to find the means to work together when the facts indicate fraud or theft have occurred.  The preneed regulator will be the first to suspect something is wrong, but in the end, may lack the resources to press for prosecution.   Prosecutors may lack the facts and knowledge of the preneed law to determine whether a crime has been committed.  Better coordination between regulators and local prosecutors is needed.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a move to remain autonomous from the funeral industry and its oversight, the Missouri cemetery industry met with its regulator during the summer of 2008 to discuss reform legislation. Disagreements precluded effective legislation from being passed in 2009, but extensive changes was passed in 2010, and became effective on August 28, 2010. Now, the Missouri cemetery regulator has the task of implementing the law, and notifying cemetery operators and trustees of the new requirements.

Missouri’s Cemetery Endowed Care Trust Law (Sections 214.270 et seq) is administered by the Office of Endowed Care Cemeteries. A brief summary of the new law’s requirements can be found on the OECC’s website.

The new law makes substantial changes to perpetual care trusts (Section 214.330), sales documents (Section 214.282) and the preneed merchandise sales (Section 214.387).
Some perpetual care trusts define capital gains as income.

The new law incorporates the uniform principal and income act, precluding capital gains from being treated as income. This change is being imposed retroactively to existing trusts, thus forcing many cemeteries to amend their trust agreements. But, the new law does authorize fixed distributions that can exceed the trust’s income.

The new law also imposes the following requirements on perpetual care trusts:

A. Trust records must be made accessible to OECC examiners.
B. Trust instruments must be filed for approval.
C. Sales documents for interment rights and merchandise must comply with the Law, or the contract can be voided with interest refundable to the consumer.
D. The OECC can order the trustee to suspend your PC distributions.
E. PC deposits must be made on a monthly basis (instead of semi-annually).
F. The PC requirements have been raised for certain interment rights.

With regard to preneed, cemeteries must start from scratch. The prior law provided a low trusting requirement for services (opening and closings), and a segregated account requirement for marker and monument sales. To avoid the funeral licensing and trusting requirements of SB1, Missouri cemeteries must now comply with RSMo. Section 214.387. (To read a prior post on the new trusting requirement click here.)

Section 214.387 will require a cemetery to establish either an escrow account or a new trust, and comply with the following:

A. Escrow agents must be independent of the cemetery.
B. Escrow agreements and trust agreements must be filed with the OECC for approval.
C. Twenty percent of consumer payments may be retained but all subsequent payments must be deposited to a trust or an escrow account.
D. If a trust is used, all income must remain in the trust.
E. Deposits must be made within 60 days of receipt by the cemetery.
F. Preneed reporting to the OECC will begin in 2011.
G. New sales contract forms are required.

Banks that serve as a cemetery trustee will soon be receiving a letter advising of the new requirements. Missouri cemeteries will have more than New Year's resolutions to prepare for 2011.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Families and funeral homes harmed by NPS will hope that company’s owners and officers have to face a judge like the Honorable Richard Rome.

The Hutchinson News reported that District Judge Richard Rome rejected a plea bargain for probation, and sentenced Fairlawn Burial Park’s owner to almost 5 years in prison. A Kansas Secretary of State audit of Fairlawn’s permanent maintenance trust and preneed merchandise trust found several hundreds of thousands of dollars missing. The owner’s attorney suggested the funds were used to keep the cemetery operating.

While prosecutors negotiated a deal to replenish the trusts, the judge disregarded the plea bargain and sentenced Ms. McDonough to prison. The message to operators is that if the cemetery needs funds for operations, don’t borrow them from the trusts.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Almost a year to the date after SB1 was signed into law, one of the NPS sister companies was forced to close its doors. The recent Kansas City Star article about Mt. Washington Forever Funeral Home and Cemetery describes a situation that confused and disheartened the families who purchased Mt. Washington preneed contracts. The Missouri Attorney General’s subsequent press release offers little hope to the purchasers of preneed funeral contracts. While the press release offers some encouragement to preneed cemetery purchasers, those families also face the prospect of losing the funds paid to the cemetery.

Many consumers will lose some, or all, of the funds they paid Mt. Washington towards preneed contracts, and question why Missouri regulators did not act sooner. While operators and consumers both tend to view death care regulators as the ‘cops’, these state agencies lack both the authority or budget to summarily close businesses that break the law.

Within the next few weeks, both the Office of Endowed Care Cemeteries and the State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors will release to their respective industries new reporting requirements. Similar to reporting requirements imposed in Nebraska and Iowa, the Missouri regulators will begin seeking individual contract data from operators, and confirming data from preneed fiduciaries. These new reporting requirements will allow the regulators to begin identifying other potential Mt. Washingtons. But, regulators alone cannot protect every consumer. In the case of Mt. Washington, consumers have complained they were caught completely off guard by the closure.

If operator compliance reports were made available to the public, consumers could also assume a role in policing the preneed industry. In this vein, the OECC has expressed an interest in using the reporting requirements to form a grading system for operators’ compliance with state law requirements.

Such systems already exist in other states, Texas for one. Using a system that ranges from 1 (the highest level of compliance) to 5 (the lowest level of compliance), the operator is graded routinely on a number of issues. Such a system must be fair and equitable, and provide operators the opportunity to address issues. But once the process has been completed, the grades are then made public. Consumers are then able to access an operator’s audit report and grade to assess how safe the operator’s preneed funds are.

Rather than rely wholly upon the regulator, consumers must make inquiries before signing the contract and writing the check. If regulators do not make information available to the public, then consumers should begin asking their funeral home or cemetery whether certain types of information is available, and if so, can copies be provided:

• A copy of the death care operator’s current audit/examination report
• A summary of the annual report filed with the state regulator
• A summary of the current trustee report or insurance statement
• A contact name and email address with whom inquiries can be made of the preneed fiduciary or insurance carrier.

The Missouri Attorney General has advised Mt. Washington consumers to contact the AG’s office to file a complaint. Mt. Washington consumers also need to make inquiries to the Missouri funeral home regulator and/or the Missouri cemetery regulator.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Kansas regulators want to be able to put a new sign in front of a troubled Hutchison cemetery: Under New Management! And, it would please the state of Kansas and the city of Hutchison if that new management team does not include them.

State and local officials appreciate that the grave lot owners, and the community, are better served by keeping cemetery ownership in the private sector. So, when the operator’s noncompliance threatens the cemetery’s viability, regulators must act, or eventually face the liabilities of running the cemetery.

Some Hutchison citizens may be puzzled why the recent plea does not include mandatory time. Getting the cemetery into the hands of a reputable operator has a higher priority, and the old owner’s cooperation may be needed. Fulfilling preneed contracts and addressing permanent maintenance trust deficiencies will better serve the Hutchison community.

The Kansas regulators must now find a suitable successor.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Forest Hills’ preneed consumers were hoping for news of retribution, but Clayton Smart’s anticipated plea bargain was put on hold. If news reports are accurate, authorities from Tennessee (and perhaps Michigan and Indiana) have their sites on the individual(s) who facilitated the transactions that eventually left preneed trusts and permanent maintenance trusts depleted.

For the past few years, Mr. Smart has sat in jail while authorities built their cases. Until recently, Mr. Smart had not even employed an attorney. In what may be tipping his hand, Smart’s attorney now suggests his client has paid a steep price through incarceration. If Forest Hills consumers had their way, Mr. Smart would be condemned to a much warmer, and eternal, confinement.

It is most likely that Mr. Smart has been making his deal through testimony given, and to be given, with respect to his transactions in Michigan and Tennessee. Mr. Smart’s Michigan caper has been detailed by the Detroit Business Journal in an article titled The Grave Robbers. CNNMoney has also chronicled the story.

By these accounts, Mr. Smart had no prior experience in either the funeral business or the cemetery business. Yet, with the help of ‘sophisticated financial advisors’, a self-promoting speculator exploited the laws meant to protect the consumers of both industries.

The Tennessee authorities cannot possibly make the Forest Hill consumers whole. When Smart took control of the Forest Hill preneed trust funds, its insurance investments were surrendered at substantial losses. Smart’s advisors wanted to put the money to better use. Consequently, the authorities need to make an example of Mr. Smart, and his friends. 

Those victimized by NPS (and the IFDA?) are hoping for some of the same justice. However, the issue of justice in Missouri is complicated by rumors of complicity between the preneed company and some of its industry members.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Topeka Capital-Journal has identified the essence of the Secretary of State’s plan for Kansas cemetery regulation: addressing cemetery problems before the trusts go upside down.

There are two types of cemetery trusts: perpetual care trusts and preneed trusts. Perpetual care trusts (or permanent maintenance trusts) provide the cemetery crucial funding for mowing, and the other expenses related to care of graves, markers, roads and trees. Preneed trusts are required when cemeteries sell services and merchandise (such as vaults and markers) where delivery is deferred to a later date.

Both types of cemetery trusts have a funding liability that serves as its waterline. It is fairly common for a trust to ‘take on water’ when the value of its assets falls below the required deposit balance. As the trust takes on water, the operator’s liability will become so great that it will flip the boat, and take all aboard down.

A cemetery trust going ‘upside down’ can be an indicator the operator has used the consumers’ payments to pay bills instead of making the required deposits. These are challenging times for cemeteries, and some operators may find it easier to ‘borrow’ from the consumer than to go to the bank for a loan or to implement difficult business changes.

The Kansas Secretary of State has taken the position that it only has the tools to spot those cemetery operations that are listing dangerously to one side or the other. To avoid the expense of salvaging a shipwreck, the Secretary wants the ability to intervene earlier. To identify troubled vessels, the Secretary of State’s legislative agenda would have required monthly reporting from the cemetery operator and the trustee. However, the Secretary’s plan ran afoul of the industry’s supertanker: SCI.

At a legislative hearing, SCI took the position that the burden of monthly reporting “would greatly overshadow any benefit which could otherwise be obtained through the more practical option of annual reporting.” For the large, public companies subjected to regular reviews by the Securities Exchange Commission and the Internal Revenue Services, a state mandate requiring monthly reporting might be redundant and burdensome. However, the industry continues to be dominated by the independent operator, for whom the Secretary is the principal regulator.

In the next Kansas legislative session, certain compromises need to be struck for the benefit of the consumer. More frequent reporting should help flag irregularities that are symptomatic of the troubled operator. Independent fiduciary reporting is also needed as a cross check to what the operator is filing. And, if this is redundant to an operator’s existing reporting systems, the law could provide the flexibility to allow an operator to ‘clep out’ of monthly reporting.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

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

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

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

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

Governor Quinn's Cemetery Oversight Task Force worked overtime to get their report done early, and Illinois' death care industry now faces new questions about reform legislation.  It would appear that SB1682 will not be the last shot fired in the battle for death care reform for Illinois.

The full report is available on the Governor's website. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Recent cemetery failures are causing regulators from Illinois, Missouri and Kansas to take a closer look at the oversight provided for preneed sales of vaults, markers, urns and burial services.

Cemetery preneed is a different animal for that offered by funeral homes. As Mr. Newcomer suggested to a reporter, the big difference between the two industries revolves around the grave. The interment represents a perpetual obligation on the part of the cemetery.

For the cemetery, the preneed sale typically begins with the grave sale. For the larger cemetery, the preneed sale seldom ends there. The cemetery may sell a variety of merchandise and services to lot owners. Many of the items can be delivered in advance of death, but often the lot owner will want to defer delivery of some of the items.

In contrast to a funeral, cemetery preneed can not be tied to a death, and as a consequence, life insurance is not a viable funding vehicle. Trusts or constructive delivery are the main methods of safeguarding the consumer.

When trust funded preneed is used by the cemetery, the preneed accounting involves a ‘bucket’ for each category of merchandise or service offered to the consumer. Cemetery preneed sales are often made in stages, with the consumer adding items as his/her budget allows. Consequently, buckets are added or emptied as the consumer adds purchases or consents to the delivery of merchandise (like a marker).

As regulators look to provide more oversight to the cemetery preneed transaction, they need to understand the bucket factor.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Recent problems in Illinois and Kansas have prompted funeral directors, and funeral regulators, to recommend that more regulation should be required of cemeteries, including licensing. What’s good for us is good for you.

When the Illinois Comptroller assured the public that the state was acting promptly to revoke Burr Oak’s license, many distraught families could have reasonably assumed Mr. Hynes was taking drastic action against the cemetery. When a regulator ‘jerks’ a funeral home license, the action puts that establishment out of business. Not so for the cemetery licenses required by Illinois and Missouri.

The licenses granted by these states authorize the cemetery to receive and administer funds for endowed care or preneed. Under Missouri’s cemetery law, compliance with the endowed care requirements is voluntary. If a cemetery wants to hold itself out to the public as having an endowed care fund, then it must comply with Chapter 214. If the cemetery doesn’t want the hassle of maintaining a trust and filing reports, it can operate as a non-endowed cemetery by making certain disclosures. The vast majority of Missouri’s cemeteries operate as non-endowed cemeteries.

So when Mr. Hynes jerks Burr Oaks’ license that means the cemetery can’t accept preneed funds or endowed care contributions. It doesn’t mean the cemetery has been closed for business. In fact, regulators like Mr. Hynes face a dilemma when the encounter a Burr Oak Cemetery, or a Valley View Cemetery: there are still burials to be made.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

What transpired over the years at Burr Oak Cemetery is an atrocity. Hundreds of grave spaces have been desecrated, causing extreme emotional distress to all families having a loved one buried at the cemetery.

The demand for action has been intense, and Illinois politicians have responded with legislative proposals to improve oversight of cemeteries. The Comptroller’s proposal would require cemeteries to be licensed. Governor Quinn has countered with a proposal to establish a commission. Some in the press assert there are enough laws on the books to take action. To an extent, the latter point of view is accurate. There are laws on the books to protect against what happened at Burr Oak. The issue is who has the responsibility (and resources) to enforce those laws? (Hint: It’s not the Comptroller.)

If the public sides with the politicians seeking to create a new state agency for cemetery oversight, there will be a cost to all cemeteries subject to that law. Those costs will eventually be passed on to the consumer and the cemetery industry will struggle with the issue of whether that law should cover the cemeteries owned by municipalities, counties and churches? Such costs will also impact funeral homes when families want a traditional funeral, but have limited resources.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

NPS' sister corporation, Forever Illinois, used the Illinois self trusting provisions to administer preneed funds.  As with funeral operators, Senate Bill 1682 will force Illinois cemeteries to seek corporate fiduciaries to administer their preneed and endowed care funds. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

John Penton has a valid point.

Funeral homes and cemeteries compete for the vault sale. And, the price of a grave space will impact what a family will pay for a traditional funeral and burial. So, when a cemetery faces economic challenges that impact the maintenance of graves, should competing funeral directors be allowed to serve on the cemetery’s board and establish policies regarding pricing?

If the funeral directors serving on the cemetery board vote to keep the prices of graves artificially low, then the cemetery has to mark up the prices it charges for merchandise or services. To the extent the vault is priced higher than what competitors charge, the cemetery loses out (and the funeral home gets the sale).

If the cemetery raises the price of its grave space and services, the family may decide it can’t afford to pay as much for a casket.

While the historic divide between cemeteries and funeral homes is fading or blurring, certain differences will always exist. Funeral directors that assume a fiduciary position at a cemetery must consider the ‘perpetual’ nature of a cemetery, and the costs of the maintenance and care.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

Rules and regulations provide an important framework for the operation and maintenance of a cemetery.  However, cemeteries should retain the flexibility to revise their rules to adapt to changes in operations, business and customs.   It's difficult to understand why a cemetery would risk complaints and the prospect of losing business by rigidly adhering to a set of rules and regulations that are almost 80 years old.

It's the family's names that are etched in stone, not the cemetery rules and regulations.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Like homeowner’s covenants, ownership of an interment right in a burial space comes subject to the cemetery’s published rules. Cemetery rules are used to regulate such issues as the planting of trees and shrubs, establishing uniform requirements for markers, the removal of decorations, and a transfer of the interment right. Consequently, it’s common for states to pass a law like Georgia’s Section 10-14-16 that subjects cemetery rules to a standard of reasonableness. That law was at the heart of a recent lawsuit that ended in a court order precluding a cemetery’s efforts to impose a “My way, or the highway” rule on lot owners.

Most cemeteries require the use of a vault to maintain the integrity of the casket and the uniformity of the burial spaces. As a consequence, the vault is an item that the funeral home and cemetery compete to sell. As the news article reports, most vaults are made out of concrete.

To gain the upper hand on his competition, the cemetery owner implemented a rule requiring lot owners to use a new type of vault made of a steel-polymer composition (that the cemetery had exclusive rights to sell). Putting aside a couple of ‘minor’ legal issues, this strategy should fail the reasonableness test if the newspaper’s reporting is accurate. The article attributes the following to cemetery owner:

….people who already bought burial plots and demanded concrete vaults could sell their plots and relocate to another cemetery.

Regardless of whether a lighter, stronger type of vault is a better choice, it is not reasonable to impose a new rule that forces existing lot owners to make a choice between purchasing that vault or selling their lots. Even if the cemetery’s attorney were to prevail on an appeal of the court’s order, the cemetery’s competitors have other legal challenges such as anti-tying violations or the impairment of contracts.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

When Missouri’s Chapter 436/NPS reform legislation began to take shape last summer, the state’s cemetery industry sought to get out of the train’s way by incorporating new preneed provisions into a Chapter 214 bill. To clarify that cemeteries could establish preneed programs that would be regulated exclusively under Chapter 214, and not Chapter 436, statutory exceptions were drafted into Senate Bill 1 not once, but twice. To add a belt to those suspenders, a statutory exception for cemeteries was also drafted into the Chapter 214 bill. But alas, there has been a small slip between the cusp and the lips.

SB1’s two ‘cemetery exemptions’ are found at Section 333.310 and Section 436.410. Section 333.310 was intended to exempt cemeteries from the State Funeral Board jurisdiction and Section 436.410 was intended to exempt cemeteries from Chapter 436.

333.310 The provisions of sections 333.310 to 333.340 shall not apply to a cemetery operator who sells contracts or arrangements for services for which payments received by, or on behalf of, the purchaser are required to be placed in an endowed care fund or for which a deposit into a segregated account is required under chapter 214, RSMo; provided that a cemetery operator shall comply with sections 333.310 to 333.340 if the contract or arrangement sold by the operator includes services that may only be provided by a licensed funeral director or embalmer.

436.410. The provisions of sections 436.400 to 436.520 shall not apply to any contract or other arrangement sold by a cemetery operator for which payments received by or on behalf of the purchaser are required to be placed in an endowed care fund or for which a deposit into a segregated account is required under chapter 214, RSMo; provided that a cemetery operator shall comply with sections 436.400 to 436.520 if the contract or arrangement sold by the operator includes services that may only be provided by a licensed funeral director or embalmer.

Both exemptions define a cemetery preneed arrangement where the purchaser’s payments must be deposited to an endowed care fund or a segregated account. One problem with this is that endowed care trusts cannot be used for preneed payments. A second problem is that the segregated account arrangement was eliminated from the final version of SB296. The Missouri cemetery industry’s last chance for a statutory exemption, a new Section 214.320.5, fell victim to a last minute deletion from SB296.

Missouri cemeteries now face an uncertain future with a new Chapter 436, and an expanded Chapter 333.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Missouri Legislature has reform of Chapter 436, the preneed funeral law, on the fast track. With the speed that Senate Bill 1 has been amended and perfected, it may be more appropriate to label this reform as being in the express lane. However, Missouri legislators must not lose track of the cemetery industry’s efforts to effect its own reforms for Chapter 214.

As with most states, Missouri regulates cemeteries under a separate law and a separate regulator. For the most part, Missouri’s cemeteries have been spared from the NPS abuses. Regardless, the state’s cemetery industry has been pursuing needed changes to Chapter 214. Appropriately, Senate Substitute for the SCS SB1, attempts to carve out cemetery exemptions from preneed funeral regulation, but misses the mark.

Chapter 333 vests regulation of funeral directors and funeral establishments in the State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors. SB1 will expand the State Board’s authorities to regulate the preneed transaction, and the revisions to Chapter 333 include new definitions of “funeral merchandise” and “preneed contract”. Those definitions overlap with the property, merchandise and services sold by cemeteries. To exclude cemeteries from the State Board’s jurisdiction, SB1 includes a new Section 333.310:

333.310. The provisions of sections 333.300 to 333.340 shall not apply to a cemetery operator who sells contracts or arrangements for services for which payments received by, or on behalf of, the purchaser are required to be placed in an endowed care fund or for which a deposit into a segregated account is required under chapter 214, RSMo, provided that a cemetery operator shall comply with sections 333.300 to 333.340 if the contract or arrangement sold by the operator includes services that may only be provided by a licensed funeral director or embalmer.

With Chapter 333 now defining funeral merchandise to include grave spaces, markers and vaults, cemeteries that sell these items on a preneed basis will be subject to the State Board’s licensing jurisdiction. Section 333.310 exempts cemeteries from the State Board’s jurisdiction to the extent that the cemetery sells only preneed burial services such as opening and closings (and then one has to question the exemption’s reference to endowed care fund or segregated account). If the cemetery sells property or merchandise, the State Board would have jurisdiction for requiring preneed licensing.

In contrast, the cemetery exemption from Chapter 436 does not reference services (and consequently, has a broader affect):

436.410. The provisions of sections 436.400 to 436.520 shall not apply to any contract or other arrangement sold by a cemetery operator for which payments received by or on behalf of the purchaser are required to be placed in an endowed care fund or for which a deposit into a segregated account is required under chapter 214, RSMo, provided that a cemetery operator shall comply with sections 436.400 to 436.520 if the contract or arrangement sold by the operator includes services that may only be provided by a licensed funeral director or embalmer.

However, the Chapter 436 exemption is also problematic for cemeteries. This provision would exempt contracts sold by cemeteries where the purchaser payments are deposited to an endowed care fund or to a segregated account required under Chapter 214. This provision is rather confusing because endowed care trusts cannot be used for preneed payments, but rather for the care and maintenance of the cemetery. The reference to “segregated accounts” contemplates Section 214.387, a provision that authorizes cemetery operators a procedure for deferring the delivery of markers pursuant to a purchaser’s instructions. The segregated account does not provide adequate consumer protections, and should not be the basis for an exemption from Chapter 436.

If would be preferable to address Chapter 436 and Chapter 214 at the same time so that the exemptions can be dovetailed, but if Chapter 436 continues on its current pace, the cemetery exemption must contemplate future trusting/escrow arrangements under Chapter 214, or provide the Director of the Division of Professional Registration the authority to exempt cemeteries based on their individual preneed programs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Federal Reserve’s December 17th decision to cut its interest rate to less than a quarter of a percent is meant to encourage investors back into the stock market. But for many cemeteries, the prospect of depressed interest rates will have dire consequences to endowed/perpetual care trusts that are subject to state laws which limit or restrict equity investments.

State laws have historically imposed conservative investment standards upon endowed care funds to ensure preservation of the trust corpus. However, the bull markets experienced during the past decade often came at the expense of bond returns and other fixed income investments. With stagnant returns, cemeteries in states such as Michigan and Missouri have been seeking law changes to allow endowed care trusts to diversify for growth and larger distributions.

In 2006, a straightforward approach was introduced in the Michigan legislature. HB 6254 would have allowed an endowed care trust to distribute 50% of its accumulated net capital gains to the cemetery operator. However, that bill got lost in the turmoil of the Clayton Smart fraud. Instead, Michigan is now on the road to a more complex approach to diversification that incorporates the Prudent Investor Rule and oversight governed by rules and regulations to be promulgated by the Cemetery Commissioner.

Some of Missouri’s cemeteries introduced the unitrust concept to legislative negotiations held in 2007, and then again in Chapter 214 hearings held this past summer. That proposal would allow the cemetery operator to make an election to require the trust to make an annual fixed distribution of between 3 to 5% of the trust’s value. Missouri’s cemetery law (Chapter 214) lacks a clear definition of “income”, and regulators have taken contradictory positions over the years about whether capital gains may be treated as income to be distributed to the cemetery operator. In an attempt to clarify this ambiguity, the cemeteries turned to Missouri’s Uniform Trust Code and RSMo Section 469.411 to provide a clear standard for income, to promote diversification and to provide cemetery operators greater distributions. But in doing so, the proponents have ignored certain realities, and the controversies that surround the unitrust concept.

Many endowed care trusts are too small to effectively diversify for a fixed distribution of 5%, and proponents have fought alternatives that would grant the trustee authority to reduce distributions below 3%. The proposal would also restrict a trustee’s authority to make income and principal adjustments, a crucial element of the Missouri law.

In view of the current financial environment, cemeteries need the authority to diversify endowed/perpetual care funds. But, a balance needs to be struck between fostering growth in the trust and meeting the cemetery operator’s income needs for maintenance and care. Finding that balance should not be left to the unitrust concept, and faith in the stock market.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Even when the need for reform is apparent to all, the legislative process can take years. With the Michigan Senate having approved a House substitute, that state’s cemeteries are a step closer to reform that could have avoided Clayton Smart’s pillaging of $70 million dollars of endowed care funds.

The Michigan Legislature’s website provides the history of SB 0674, from its introduction in August 2007, to the Senate’s December 19th vote to adopt the House substitute. Including the Attorney General’s investigation, the Michigan reform process has taken over two years. As with all reform efforts, some were not happy with the delays encountered in the Legislature’s efforts. Getting it right is not as easy as it would seem.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

When its Halloween, the media is naturally attracted to a story that involves horror and a cemetery.  The Belleville News-Democrat found a new type of horror for its seasonal article involving a cemetery: Missing Trust Funds!

For added suspense, the newspaper reports there are two cemeteries, and both were (or are?) owned and operated by Forever Illinois, a sister corporation of National Prearranged Services.  Determining who owns and operates the cemeteries seems to be an issue of confusion for the Illinois regulators.  The cemeteries have turned into a hot potato.

Concerns over the Forever Missouri cemeteries had to have influenced Missouri regulators' efforts to seek new enforcement authorities in Chapter 214.  Unlike their Illinois counterparts, Missouri regulators lack clear authority to involve either the attorney general's office or local prosecutors. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Funeral homes and cemeteries are businesses that serve families when they are most vulnerable. To guard against exploitation, the death care industry establishes standards of professionalism, and state governments pass laws and regulations. Consumer advocacy plays an important role in educating consumers about these standards, and providing families tools in evaluating death care operators. To best serve their members, consumer advocates must be informed and objective in responding to potential abuses. If not, these organizations can discredit their purpose and damage their relationships with the death care industry. 

A Fort Myers newspaper ran a recent story about the frustrations of an elderly couple that wanted to trade in their burial crypts for cremation services. The story indicates the couple had purchased two burial crypts more than a decade ago, and became angry when the cemetery would not provide a credit equal to their original purchase price. The story relies upon Bill Swain, President of the Florida Funeral and Cemetery Consumer Advocacy, to flesh out the facts and to provide a perspective. In doing so, Mr. Swain seems to have spun the facts in an attempt to kill two birds with one stone: labeling the cemetery as greedy and disparaging preneed.

In response to the cemetery refusing to re-purchase the burial crypts from the couple, the paper attributes the following to Mr. Swain:

This is one of the drawbacks of prepaying for any funeral needs, ….

Why not just give them the money back when (the cemetery) can sell it for three times as much?

The laws in Florida are on the side of the funeral business, not on the consumers.

It is no secret that consumer advocates oppose preneed, and a casual read of the story would suggest that this is another example of preneed abuse. The couple also has the perception that the cemetery has been earning interest on the funds paid for the burial crypts. However, the story is misleading, and one can question whether Mr. Swain is responsible.

It is not clear from the facts whether the couple even purchased their burial spaces through a preneed contract. If the couple went to the cemetery, paid the purchase price and then received a deed to the spaces, that does not constitute a preneed transaction. If the spaces were purchased through a preneed transaction, the news report indicates the couple own the spaces, and therefore, one can conclude they received the property they contracted to purchase.  Consequently, Mr. Swain’s statements are misleading, particularly when you attempt to reconcile the 3rd statement from above with the FFCCA website:

Friends and Neighbors: The Governor signed SB 528, "The Sen. Howard Futch Memorial Act," into law!! We win!!! Whee!! Thank you, ALL of you, both industry and consumerr reps, for the support you gave our good cause. NOW...(you knew this was coming, didn't you?), we have to stay on top of the process by which the new regulatory structure will be put in place. Please stay alert. The effective date to implement "our" legislation is October 2005. There are lots and lots of critical dates between now and then, and we (FFCCA) will keep you informed. Let's all take a few deep breaths and yell: "Yeeeee-haw!! Bill Swain

Putting the preneed issue aside, another question is whether Mr. Swain is suggesting that cemeteries should refund a burial space purchase price whenever the owner changes his mind. If so, then it’s fair for the Florida death care industry to question whether Mr. Swain has made the necessary effort to become informed, and whether he can be objective in responding to consumers and reporters.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Who do you turn to when grass isn’t being cut, or the grave marker falls over? Or, who can approve the transfer of the ownership of my mother’s grave space? 

Ultimately, the answer depends on who owns the cemetery. But, determining who owns the cemetery can often prove confusing to both the public and the cemetery regulator. 

 

A recent Manteca Bulletin article about the ‘friends’ of the East Union Cemetery would seem to be just another story about a pioneer cemetery that has no funds for care and maintenance. But a closer examination suggests a situation where concerned citizens signed on to serve on a cemetery association board without understanding the accompanying responsibilities. 

 

East Union Cemetery is located in Manteca, California, a community of 50,000 that is located 80 miles east of San Francisco. As with most “public” cemeteries, East Union Cemetery is required by state law to file reports for authority to continue operations. But apparently, East Union Cemetery failed to file those reports a few years ago and the California Cemetery and Funeral Bureau began to send out notices.   When no one responded, the state began to investigate, and issues of ownership, missing funds and accountability began to surface. 

 

News reports indicate the cemetery had an endowment fund of $800,000 as recently as ten years ago. But then, one member was accused of embezzling funds and the cemetery association board membership dwindled down to two members. 

 

With the state still conducting its investigation, Manteka’s citizens responded to the situation by forming a new and expanded cemetery association board. However, reports and regulator press releases suggest that the new board may have exceeded its authorities in the zeal to address the cemetery’s needs. Subsequent to the appointment of the new board, the state seized the cemetery’s remaining funds and submitted a proposed agreement to the cemetery association. Shocked by this turn of events, the new board resigned, and pointed a finger at the cemetery regulators. 

 

The facts suggest the cemetery association board did not appreciate the laws governing cemetery care funds. It may be that the new board followed a course of action that had transpired over the past ten years. Endowment care (or perpetual care) funds are intended to provide income to subsidize the cemetery’s maintenance expenses. Most states’ cemetery laws prohibit the fund fiduciary from invading principal to meet the cemetery’s needs. 

 

The California Cemetery and Funeral Bureau is caught between a rock and a hard spot. Well-intended citizens stepped up to a situation that demanded attention, but acted without knowing the rules.   The Bureau’s press release and Q&A posting help tell its side of the situation. 

 

Individuals who have an interest in serving on a cemetery association board need to appreciate the responsibilities that accompany that service.   Those responsibilities will be defined in part by the association articles and bylaws, applicable state cemetery laws and the agreements and documents that bind the association.   As witnessed by a lawsuit filed recently in Brooklyn, New York, those legal documents have life beyond the grave. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Mortuary Management’s July/August Colleague Wisdom column underscores how difficult it can be to run a trade association. I can empathize with the funeral home operators who took the time to provide their thoughts. As an attorney who specializes in the death care industry, I have to weigh the costs and benefits of membership in trade associations from two industries.

Every so often, the American Bar Association calls to solicit my renewal to the ABA. I was an ABA member back in 1986, the first year out of law school. After that first year membership, I never renewed again. Yet, they continue to call. And I will continue to decline, because the ABA is not a resource that is worth the cost (to me).   

  

In contrast, I do belong to the Missouri Bar Association.   The MBA provides services and programs that justify its membership costs to me. The MBA is not only a good source for forms and information, it provides some reasonable discounts for continuing education classes. However, I have not found that to be same for the Kansas Bar Association. The KBA seems to be marketing primarily to the trial attorney bar (a reflection of an economic reality).

 

If comments published in The Colleague Wisdom are representative of the funeral industry, the article reflects that funeral directors also tend to look more to their state association for the services and programs they need. It should come as no surprise but the level of satisfaction among funeral directors varies greatly. It is difficult to compare state associations because each has its own unique set of factors or hurdles. However, there seems to be certain common standards.

 

The Colleague Wisdom comments provide some insight to what industry members expect from an association, and why some do not participate. The comments also touch upon the revenues that subsidize the association. As Mr. Wigger so succinctly states: membership in a state association is a matter of weighing the costs vs. the benefits. One reality is that an association must impose costs in order to have the funds needed for programs and services that will attract membership. It is also a reality that some industry members will complain no matter what the cost. 

 

Some of the Colleague Wisdom comments have been highlighted in yellow, green and pink. The yellow comments seem to reflect an association’s perceived values. The green comments make note of a source of revenue, and the pink comments reflect criticisms. Associations need to be sensitive to criticism, and adapt to the membership’s needs. In order to do so, the association must seek input (even if it is done so by a coded survey). 

 

Now for the obligatory preneed comments:

 

Funeral directors who are opposed to preneed will need to appreciate that master trusts are an important source of revenue for association programs and organizational expenses. The master trust is an even more important revenue source for associations in states where continuing education is not required. But as one Colleague Wisdom commentator points out, association leadership must be careful with regard to the master trust becoming a competitor to its own members. In a sense, the master trust cannot help but be a competitor to larger independents that have their own preneed administration. The master trust may be the only way for the small operator to effectively compete for the preneed sale. Accordingly, it will become incumbent for association leadership to diffuse these situations through cooperation and attempts to find mutual benefits. 

 

Association leadership must also be careful that the master trust does not become a source of dissatisfaction when earnings and/or expense expectations are not met. Disclosures, accountability, frequent communications, innovation and leadership will be crucial to retaining membership satisfaction. 

 

With the NPS failure, associations may have an opportunity to expand their master trusts. But to do so, some state associations need to assess why funeral homes turned to NPS in the first place. Some funeral homes did succumb to the promises of profit, or looked forward to the Rep visit, but many did so out of dissatisfaction with their master trust. For some funeral directors (like those in Illinois), the state association may have a difficult task in regaining the membership’s faith.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

David L. Bingham, Jr. (Junior) is getting his 15 minutes of fame. 

The Associated Press ran Junior's story about  the wrong David L. Bingham, Sr. having been buried next to his mother.   The cemetery has offered Junior some options for correcting the misburial, but he has rejected them all.   A demand for compensation is in the winds.

A more detailed story about the situation was reported by the The Enquirer, and it would seem that Junior may be exploiting the situation.  

Misburials are rare, but they happen.  In this situation, the stated facts suggest that someone contacted the cemetery for a burial of a David L. Bingham, Sr. and a records check indicated David L. Bingham Sr. already owned a lot.  How many David L. Bingham Sr.s can there be?  The cemetery staff would have made some type of inquiry, and the individual arranging the burial must have made an assumption, and the late Mr. Bingham became acquainted with the late Mrs. Bingham, so to speak.  

Junior knows there was a mistake because Dad is buried in Kentucky.   Sounds like Junior's parents were divorced.  Which raises the question: Was the space in dispute purchased for Junior or for Dad?   

The cemetery may be asking the same question, but it sounds as though a change in management and ownership has occurred since the Binghams purchased their lots.  The new owners may not be able to confirm this fact.

Generally, cemeteries retain the authority to correct misburials through their rules and regulations .  State laws typically recognize this authority in statutes.  Ohio law regarding disinterments provides an exception to allow burial corrections.  But Junior will have no part of this, claiming that "I don't want to be buried in a used grave!"    Junior is even suffering from anxiety attacks.   Sounds like Junior is being coached by an attorney.  (Don't you just love lawyers.)

 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

One of our first blog posts was about Delaware’s legislative effort to tackle the state’s growing problems with cemetery oversight. After a recent public hearing before the legislative study committee, it doesn’t sound like the committee is any closer to a consensus on what the state’s solution should be. Sen. Margaret Rose Henry may be getting a feel for the competing interests at play. To her credit, she promises to persevere by having the committee members bring their respective bills to the full committee so that the attorneys can help. It is reassuring to see democracy at work.

A Capital University Law Review article by C. Allen Shaffer provides one explanation of the competing interests that surface over an abandoned cemetery. This article may not be accurate for some abandoned cemeteries, but it does accurately depict the 3 opposing interests that frequently arise in these circumstances (see page 493): a developer, a group adverse to additional taxation required for the maintenance and a group that favors historic preservation of the cemetery.

I would agree with Mr. Shaffer that abandoned cemeteries often exist in jurisdictions that lack the tax base to support the funding required for basic maintenance of the graves. Accordingly when state legislatures resort to granting municipalities the authority to levy taxes for cemetery maintenance, few local politicians are willing to take responsibility and levy such taxes. But this is exactly what the Missouri legislature did. 

Mr. Shaffer advocates that legislatures authorize court appointed receivers that can pursue adversarial proceedings to determine which interests should prevail. But one has to question whether such an approach can work if the cemetery’s location does not provide an economic interest that would ensure the resources necessary to litigate the issues.     

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The families of those buried at Grandview Memorial Gardens are angry.  First they are advised that the trusts meant to fund future burials and the care for those graves are not properly funded. Next, they learn that some of the cemetery’s gardens have a problem with grave spaces flooding with water. When Indiana regulators and prosecutors reported there was nothing they could do to correct the situation, plaintiff attorneys filed a class action suit naming several entities as defendants, including three banks and the consolidator that sold the cemetery in 2001. The Indiana legislature has also reacted to the situation with a bill intended to eliminate the ability of the death care industry to use a custodial arrangement for these funds, and to place a greater burden on fiduciaries to police fund distributions. 

Are Grandview’s problems the fault of the three banks named as defendants in the lawsuit?  Of course not.  Should the preneed fiduciary be required to police distributions to the extent required to determine if the vault delivered is a 'sealer' or not?  Of course not.  The Grandview situation may be more indicative of the problems facing the death care industry than the irregularities facing the Illinois Funeral Directors master trust.  There are several factors that have contributed to the Grandview situation. Consequently, there are no simple answers, and shifting the blame/responsibility to the financial institutions that serve the death care industry is short sighted and counterproductive. 

Indiana’s death care laws are a hodge-podge of sections spread among different chapters, with different effective dates. If funeral directors and cemeterians cannot accurately cite the legal requirements for their trust funds, should legislators pass the responsibilities over to the financial institutions? 

It doesn’t take much speculation to guess why Indiana’s regulators have not taken any actions. More than likely, the Grandview accounts complied with the Indiana laws (albeit they were likely set up as custodial accounts). This won’t stop the class action attorneys from pursuing the deeper pockets of the banks and Carriage. 

If the death care industry should decide to take steps to improve the image of preneed and perpetual care, death care fiduciaries have to be afforded the resources and procedures required to provide meaningful oversight to account distributions. Fiduciaries are completely dependent upon the death care company for the documentation required for substantiating distributions. Many fiduciaries rely upon certifications from the death care company that a contract has been performed pursuant to its terms. But such procedures cannot ensure that a family receives a ‘sealer’ vault, if that is what the preneed contract called for.  HB 1026 will not solve Indiana’s preneed woes. The problem is deeper than the water that filled Grandview’s vaults. 

The approach taken by Grandview’s class action attorneys reminds me of the search for the infamous Keyser Söze.  As if they were reading from the script for The Usual Suspects, the attorneys advise they think they have it figured out but that legal process will have to grind out justice slowly.  For the sake of the Grandview families, we hope there will be a different ending than what happened in the movie. In real life, there is no Keyser Söze to whom all blame can be attributed.  Instead there are only some bit players who followed the twisting trail of Indiana law, and the only characters likely to profit from this drama are the attorneys. 

To help the Grandview families, the first course of action needs to be the repair of the cemetery’s drainage system. If the cemetery’s perpetual care fund was depleted through improper distributions, determine who did so. There has been little press coverage about the prior owner’s response to the perpetual care issues. Did Madison Funeral Services understand the requirements of cemetery maintenance when it purchased Grandview from Carriage in 2001?   Did the more stringent perpetual care law govern Grandview’s fund?   How much of a perpetual care fund did Madison receive from Carriage? 

With regard to whether the Grandview families were defrauded with inferior vaults, what did the preneed contracts provide? If one reads between the lines, the Jefferson County Prosecutors are indicating there is no basis for a fraud prosecution. The statute of limitations excuse sound like, ah, an excuse.  Doesn’t the statute of limitations start from the point of the discovery of the fraud? If consumers were promised a ‘sealer’ vault, and an investigation does not prove the fraud for 8 years, has the statute of limitations just been triggered? The danger for the Grandview families is that the contracts don’t call for a ‘sealer’ vault. Someone may have planted the ‘sealer’ seed in their minds, and we should hope it wasn’t someone looking to profit from the families’ emotional distress.

• Email This
• 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.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

For the second time in 7 years, the Delaware legislature is taking up the issue of cemetery oversight. As with most death care legislation, Delaware’s Cemetery Study Committee faces two hurdles: finding answers for aging cemeteries that lack revenues for maintenance, and reconciling the conflicting goals of cemeterians, funeral homes, monument vendors, local governments and the public.  

Neglect is already a problem for cemeteries established before perpetual care was a requirement, and it will become an issue for cemeteries that are not proactive in enforcing existing PC requirements.  In a sense, there are two different problems and finding a way to provide care for the older, "public" cemetery will be the greatest challenge.  Frequently the answer to this situation is more taxes and county/municipality control over the cemetery.   

With regard to cemeteries that have 'inventory' to sell, enforcement of perpetual care requirements is the priority.  However, with the costs of funeral and burials on the rise, the death care industry will be reluctant to accept requirements that drive up the cost of a grave space. 

While many cemetery operators have embraced the need to properly fund and administer perpetual care trusts, laws need to better enforce PC funding requirements and afford fiduciaries more flexibility in how PC funds are invested. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks