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

A bank client recently asked that I provide some standard of accountability for administration provided to a master preneed trust. As I struggle to provide the client a concise answer, I can’t help but to think that the issue will also become a crucial concern to consumers and funeral directors alike. As news reports reach consumers about the regulatory actions taken against the preneed programs maintained by NPS and by the Illinois Funeral Directors Association, families will begin to contact their funeral directors for reassurances about their preneed payments. Unfortunately, many state associations have not made accountability a priority, and their members may be ill prepared to respond to consumers’ concerns. 

For the independent funeral home, the state association can be a valuable resource to understanding the requirements imposed upon the profession by federal and state laws. As the preneed transaction grew in acceptance, most state associations formed master trusts to serve their member funeral homes.   These master trusts came to reflect not only the respective state’s preneed law, but also the attitudes and values of the association leadership.

Consumers need to appreciate that master preneed trusts are an important source of income to the sponsoring association. Because there are costs to providing contracts, administration, compliance, and asset management, the master trust provides the smaller funeral home the economies of scale necessary to reducing costs that would otherwise be prohibitive. However, the Illinois situation suggests that former association leadership may have exploited both members and consumers. While the association’s website is finally acknowledging the issue, the response lacks in terms of accountability. 

Getting back to my client’s question, how should accountability be measured for preneed administration from state to state? The diversity in the approaches taken by the state legislatures in regulating the preneed transaction is the single greatest hurdle to a comprehensive, national evaluation of preneed accountability. But perhaps transparency in terms of disclosures to both members and consumers would be one measure of accountability. On this standard, I would give kudos to the New Jersey Funeral Directors Association. It may be a sad reflection on the industry, but many funeral directors do not know what they are being charged for preneed services. The NJFDA provides this information for all to see.

If consumers do call for reassurances, funeral directors should have some basic information available to provide:

• How the preneed contract is funded (insurance vs. trust).
• The name of the insurance company or trustee.
• If the contract is trust funded, whether the trust holds deposit accounts, investments dictated by statute, diversified investments or insurance.
• Contact information for the person who can provide more information about the account.

When funeral directors begin to call for reassurances, association leadership should be prepared to provide the following information:

• The name and address of the trustee.
• The costs and expenses of the master trust.
• The master trust’s written investment policy.
• The fees paid to the trustee and account administrator.
• The taxes paid by the trust.
• A summary report of the trust’s performance and asset description.
• A disclosure of related party transactions (loans, discounts, service agreements, etc.)
• A summary of all trust expenses (excluding distributions for preneed contract performances and cancellations).
• The sponsorship fee paid the association. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The preneed bill that angered the Funeral Consumers Alliance in February continues to advance within the Tennessee legislature. SB 2705/HB 2763 has been placed on the calendar for the Commerce Committee for April 1^st. If passed, the legislation may well make Tennessee the first state to lower its preneed trusting requirement. Despite the need for better consumer protections, I anticipate other states may eventually follow suit. 

Preneed is evolving from a transaction of accommodation to becoming an essential element of each funeral home’s business. Funeral directors in 100% trusting states such as Tennessee are feeling the need to control their own preneed programs, and have come to appreciate the costs of establishing, and maintaining, a trust funded preneed program. 100% trusting laws have historically dictated that insurance be used as the principal method for funding, with trust funding as a backup for purchasers who were too old or could not qualify. With insurance companies coming and going within the preneed market, funeral homes want the alternative to offer consumers a trust-based product.

Why will legislators be willing to decrease 100% trusting laws: the guaranteed preneed contract has been, and continues to be, viewed as a sale of goods and services. Legislators are likely being told that if consumers want a product that provides a full refund right, and portability, then they can choose a non-guaranteed preneed contract. Tennessee’s law provides that option. But is the non-guaranteed preneed contract really a viable alternative?

The vast majority of laws and regulations aimed at regulating the preneed transaction are in response to the guaranteed preneed contract. This is true regardless of whether the issue is securities regulation, income taxes or trusting requirements. Preneed has been defined as a purchase transaction, not a dedicated savings account transaction. As a consequence, criticism that attempts to re-characterize the preneed transaction as a savings plan can often be deflected by the death care industry. 

The Tennessee Prepaid Funeral Benefits Act has several excellent features, and could serve as a reference for other states. But, as with most preneed laws, it has some provisions which leaves one to scratch his or her head (like Section 62-5-408(d)). Yet, SB2705/HB2763 provides a reasonable remedy to the hole left in the 2007 effort to repair the Smart damage: funding the protection fund from the funds retained by sellers on guaranteed preneed contract sales.  

Fiduciaries also need to consider that the Act authorizes civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation of the Act committed by the preneed trustee. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It's always an ugly scene when a party to a fiduciary relationship gets caught with his/her hand in the cookie jar.  Unfortunately, this has been happening with alarming frequency in the death care community, and Indiana has had enough.  In a relationship that requires mutual cooperation, the death care industry has taken the position that "someone should have stopped us by saying no", and the Indiana legislators have agreed.   With the legislation signed into law last week, Indiana has initiated a major shift in the responsibilities of the death care fiduciary.  Like the tree falling in the forest, was there anyone from the banking/fiduciary community around to here it?

The Indiana legislature moved quickly in response to the trust frauds committed at Grandview Memorial Gardens and at the cemeteries owned by Robert and Debra Nelms, and Governor Daniels followed suit by signing HB 1026.  The new law will go into effect July 1, authorizing the Indiana State Board of Funeral and Cemetery Service to promulgate regulations that will determine the distribution documentation that must be reviewed and approved by death care fiduciaries.  Failure to comply with these new requirements will expose the fiduciary to criminal charges and liability to cemetery customers. 

 To understand the gravity of the issue, fiduciaries need not go any further than their clients for input.  The general counsel for the Indiana Cemetery Association put it this way:

The people who own the trusts could do almost what they wanted. We've given the trust companies the incentive not to pull the wool over their eyes.

Cemetery association members were aghast to learn of the case because they did not understand the extent that the current law left cemetery trusts vulnerable. People really weren't aware. 

It would be safe to say that most death care fiduciaries are still unaware how vulnerable these trusts are.

What should death care fiduciaries do?  The knee-jerk reaction would be to terminate such accounts and run as far away as possible.  However, the fraudulent character of the charges leveled in recent class-action suits bring into question whether the statute of limitations has even begun to run.  The class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of Grandview Memorial Gardens lot owners will likely turn on whether preneed contracts were performed pursuant to their terms, and that will require the distasteful act of opening gravespaces.  The trust frauds committed by the Nelms have already snared one fiduciary and a major brokerage firm when a $20 million class-action lawsuit was filed in late January on behalf of cemetery lot owners. 

Fiduciaries with a federal charter may be tempted to play the federal preemption card that has been used to keep state regulators at bay with regard to the sub prime mortgage crisis, but history is not on the national fiduciary's side with regard to death care regulation.  State death care regulators in Florida and Texas have taken OTS preemption opinions, rolled them up and slapped thrift chartered fiduciaries into submission.  Frankly, the legal arguments advanced by the state regulators were on point.

Indiana chartered fiduciaries need to become engaged in the procedures that will be unfolding before the Indiana State Board of Funeral and Cemetery Service later this Summer.  The death care industry will be there in force providing their comments about the forms and procedures to be covered by the regulations authorized by the new law.  Fiduciaries will have no one but themselves to blame if they miss this dance. 

Federally chartered fiduciaries will need to determine how significant a block of business Indiana represents to their death care business.  These fiduciaries will also need to monitor other states to see whether the Indiana law represents a trend that other state legislatures will follow. 

Death care companies and consumers will need to anticipate an increase in the cost of fiduciary services.   The old adage "you get what you pay for" has a double-edged application to the death care fiduciary environment.  The security sought by consumers and cemeteries/funeral homes will come at a cost.  To minimize the cost of the new obligation to provide distribution oversight, death care companies and fiduciaries will need to explore standardized examination procedures or the reliance on established audit procedures.   Death care companies will also have to be more receptive to trust instrument provisions intended to provide fiduciaries the power to say no, and protections when they do.

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It must be spring: preneed reform bills are sprouting like crocus. 

 

The direction taken by the Maryland and Tennessee legislatures in proposing protection funds drew recent criticism from the Funeral Consumers Alliance. While consumer advocates have some valid points regarding these legislative efforts, the obstacles facing states are far more complex than what most outsiders understand. For purposes of this blog entry, lets focus on Maryland and put Tennessee off to another day.

 

First, a distinction needs to be made between a state’s industry board and a state trade association. Some times the two cooperate to get legislation introduced and passed, and then sometimes the two are on very different pages. Most state industry boards are understaffed and under funded. A casual survey of the website for the Maryland State Board of Morticians & Funeral Directors reflects the Board has one inspector, excuse me, had one inspector, for all of the state’s funeral homes.   While the Board’s principal purpose is the “protection of the public's health and welfare through proper credentialing, examination, licensure, and discipline of morticians, funeral directors, surviving spouses, apprentices and funeral establishments in Maryland”, its newsletter suggests preneed has become its pressing problem.

 

Preneed accounts for most of the Board’s complaints, and the number of funeral homes that are late in filing their reports to the Board are substantial. Yet any thoughts the Board may have regarding enforcement actions must be tempered with the realities of its budget. As a self-supported entity, the Board’s resources are those fees it charges the state’s funeral homes and morticians, and there lies the first rub with the state’s trade association. What businessman doesn’t complain about the fees charged for licenses? Those complaints are invariably directed to the trade association, which in turn applies pressure on the board. 

 

But the fact something is broken with regard to preneed is not lost on either the Board or Maryland’s funeral director association. The association position for scrapping the CPA certification in favor of a protection fund probably signals the industry’s acknowledgment that this oversight approach is ineffective and a waste of resources. I have experienced the same frustration working with CPAs and auditors who held themselves as having experience with the death care industry. If each funeral home has to find a CPA to certify compliance with a state law like Maryland’s, HB 1090 may well represent a better application of the funeral home’s funds. However, the real problem with Maryland preneed is its preneed law and the lack of effective oversight. 

 

The dynamics of preneed reform are complicated, but there certain generalities that apply from state to state. No matter how bad your state law is, no one wants to open the law for the donnybrook that is sure to follow if all bars are removed. It doesn’t matter if the trusting is 100% or 80%. If you work in a 100% state, there will be a strident element that argues a lower percentage will open the floodgate to the unsavory characters of preneed (and the criticism of FCA). If you work in state such as Missouri, there is the position that opening the preneed law will invite restrictions that cut into the revenue streams that funeral homes have become dependent upon. However, these arguments are beginning to pale in the face of growing frauds and abuse. Most funeral directors understand that oversight is needed, but the challenge is how to achieve it efficiently on the limited resources available. Shifting the responsibility, as Indiana’s legislature is considering, to the fiduciary will not work. 

 

With regard to Maryland’s preneed law, I would offer the following recommendations:

 

1. Require an independent, corporate trustee that can invest pursuant to the Prudent Investor Rule. Scrap the concept of letting a funeral home serve as a trustee (or escrow agent).   (And what is a trust that is insured by the FDIC?)
2. Require a combination of flat fees and per preneed contract fees that are divided between a protection fund and the Board’s costs to monitor annual reports and to take enforcement actions. The per contract fees should be assessed equally from the funeral home and the consumer (perhaps $10 each). 
3. Each preneed seller should be required to file an annual report that sets out new contract information, deposits to trust, distributions from trust, the trust’s market value and the trust liability. 
4. Each preneed seller should be subject to a tri-annual inspection that may last between 1 to 3 days. The inspection reviews the funeral home’s records, accounting controls, a sampling of transactions (deposits, distributions) and the annual reports filed with the Board. The inspection should be conducted by a CPA firm pursuant to agreed upon procedures developed by the Board, with the cost of the inspection being assessed against the funeral home. The better the funeral home’s records and procedures, the more likely the inspection can be completed in a day (and the lower the fee). With a fixed number of inspections per year, the Board should be able to negotiate a fee that is substantially less than the CPA certification required by the current law.
5. Inspections that reflect violations or deficiencies can be the basis for full audits (which are assessed against the funeral home).
6. Final inspection reports should be a matter of public record so that consumers can investigate funeral homes before making a preneed contract purchase.
7. Preneed sellers should have to obtain trustee certifications of new contract deposits, and then provide documentation to the new contract holders of the deposit of their funds to trust.
8. Preneed trustees should provide annual summary statements (transactions and asset listings) directly to the Board. 
9. Trust transfers should be documented to the Board.

Protection funds have merit, and should not be discounted as a ploy. However, preneed oversight is becoming a national issue. Documentation and disclosure will be fundamental to providing an adequate audit trail for regulators. Maryland funeral directors may have legitimate complaints for dropping their current oversight, but they should not opt for a protection fund in lieu of oversight. 

• 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.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Whether it is because of state law restrictions or preneed purchaser demographics, death care trusts have unique requirements when it comes to investments.  Consequently, it is fairly common for a death care trust to utilize an investment advisor who has experienced with the industry.  However, the deductibility of the fees paid to outside advisors by death care trustees will now be more closely scrutinized in light of a January 16th decision handed down by the US Supreme Court in the case titled Knight vs. Commissioner.   

The conflict over the deductibility of investment advisor fees developed within the context of estate planning trusts, and has been brewing since 1993 when the Sixth Circuit rejected the IRS' position in O’Neill vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 994 F.2d 302.  In subsequent cases in other circuits, the IRS prevailed in its application of IRC Section 67(a) and the 2% floor.    Like side catch in a commercial fishery net, death care trusts are being pulled into a controversy based on estate planning facts. 

The impact of this issue on some death care trusts is felt not so much by the 2% floor, but by a collateral issue: the alternative minimum tax.  For maintenance trust returns, the characterization sought by the IRS renders the advisory fees fully taxable. And, the arguments forwarded by the IRS in its briefs to the Supreme Court and the lower courts suggest that the Service may look at other types of services outsourced by the fiduciary.   

The Supreme Court left the door cracked for the full deductiblity of fees paid to trust service providers, but the death care companies will have to work with their fiduciaries to justify the deduction of such fees.  To defend the deduction, the parties have to start with their trust instrument and administration documents to define the services and justify their need.   

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Clayton Smart debacle has been, and will continue to be, the subject of articles calling for preneed reform. A recent AARP article titled R.I.P. Off  will be one of the more controversial (leading to frequent citations by consumer advocates).   While the article is biased and should be rebuked by the death care industry for its various flaws, the industry should examine the Smart affair and the public's reaction to Mr. Yeoman's issues (including the comments posted to the AARP website). 

Mr. Smart exploited the Tennessee laws to divert millions of dollars of trust assets.  While Forest Hill's new owners should be applauded for taking steps to minimize the loss to consumers, the industry should not ignore the magnitude of the fraud committed.  Over the next few months, I plan to revisit the Smart affair and the issues it spawns.  But for this post, consider the missing fiduciary.

In its April 2007 edition, the American Funeral Director reported in detail about Mr. Smart, including his appointment of a small Indiana institution as Forest Hill’s preneed trustee and the revision of the governing trust instrument.   While another of Forest Hill’s trustees discharged its duties to consumers by refusing Mr. Smart’s distribution instructions, the Indiana institution followed Smart's instructions to terminate life insurance policies that would result in millions of dollars of loss to the trust.  Too frequently, funeral directors exhibit the similar business ethics by shopping for a trustee that will do what it is told.   

Many of our country’s larger banks now refuse to accept death care trusts either because the laws are ambiguous or because of the industry’s reputation.   Death care companies need to develop procedures and controls to ensure compliance, accountability and transparency.  Restoring the confidence of  financial institutions and consumers will take time.   

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks