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

In our prior post, we commented on the lack of detail provided by the Consumer Funeral Assurance group regarding their NPS recovery plan.  We have obtained a copy of the plan, and redacted from the document correspondence that reflect names and/or contact information of recipient organizations or legislators. What is left includes a summary of the group’s proposal, which we find incoherent and difficult to understand. 

The CFA was established when NPS first collapsed and funeral providers faced an information crisis, as well as an economic crisis.  Five years later, funeral homes have a better understanding of what will be paid and when.  While no one is happy about the situation, the immediate crisis of 2008 has been eliminated.  So, today, it is not clear how many funeral homes count themselves as CFA members.  That fact is not provided by the CFA in its NPS recovery plan. 

The day may come when an NPS recovery plan is needed but the current CFA proposal detracts, rather than enhances, the group’s credibility with legislators and the industry.  Accordingly, CFA members (and former members) should request that the plan be withdrawn.    

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

Per capita, Missouri funeral directors were hit hardest by the collapse of National Prearranged Services.  And those funeral directors who suffered the greatest losses continue to demand help from the State of Missouri.  Although Missouri re-wrote its preneed law just 3 years ago, the Legislature begins hearings today on whether more legislation is needed.

With the economy as it is, the NPS providers may not find a receptive audience in Jefferson City.  Finding a receptive audience among other funeral directors can even be difficult. 

 

 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Federal Judge John Jones III has teed off (again) on the Pennsylvania Board of Funeral Directors. Awarding attorneys fees of more than a million dollars and issuing a permanent injunction against the State Board, Judge Jones rebuked Board members for their failure to show initiative towards a legislative fix to a Truman era problem. And, the situation for the State Board is about to get worse. Judge Jones will also preside over Rabbi Wasserman’s lawsuit against the State Board. The Rabbi made a very compelling case to the Tablet, and will likely find a friendly ear in Judge Jones. If these recent events are considered in the context of Ernie Heffner’s comments, one would have to wonder if the State Board is being hung out to dry by a trade association that has long endorsed the State’s enforcement of a protectionist law.

Contrary to the Judge’s perception, industry boards are better suited to applying existing law than re-writing it. The purpose for having an industry board is so that the members can provide experience and balance when applying the law to alleged violations. But if the law is broken, board members are dependent on attorneys for advice on how it should be fixed, and what to do until the law is changed. As Mr. Heffner points out, PFDA attorneys mounted a strong defense of the Pennsylvania law. The NFDA also provided support for certain provisions of the law. The Board’s legal team followed the course set by the industry attorneys. As a consequence, the State of Pennsylvania will now have to foot the bill for more than a million dollars in attorneys’ fees, with the possibility of more to come.

Pennsylvania represents a failure in legal leadership. But too often, an association defines the role of its general counsel in ways that encourage loyalty to its board (or to crucial members) at the expense of its membership, or worse yet, at the expense of the industry. Such was the case in Illinois when the general counsel approved years’ of board decisions that culminated in the near collapse of the master preneed trust.

If Pennsylvania is to find legislative solutions, it needs to be the collaborative effort of the State Board’s attorneys, industry attorneys, and the PFDA’s attorneys. Missouri should take heed from the Pennsylvania situation. For the better part of 2 years, the staff for the Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors has advised that the law is broken with regard to insurance assignments. The staff continues to pressure the Board to take action. The industry is opposed to the staff’s position on insurance assignments, and the MFDEA has recommended that funeral directors contact board members about their feelings. What the board members need is legal advice from the association and other industry attorneys. If the law isn’t broken, explain why. If the law is broken, but not to the extent the staff asserts, then recommend a fix.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Every funeral home and cemetery feels the pain of this economy, but that pain runs deeper for Missouri and Illinois funeral directors. Per capita, Missouri funeral homes bore the greater brunt of the NPS collapse. In the same year NPS collapsed, the IFDA master trust was forced to divest its key man insurance policies and force substantial losses on preneed accounts. While both states’ funeral directors were angered by the losses, Illinois funeral directors have been faster to accept some of the responsibility for their preneed failure, and to work towards change. Recent comments of MFDEA representatives reflect an association in denial, and on the path of further alienation.

In February, the Missouri funeral association held a legislative day that called for members to blitz state legislators on three bills: SB767, HB1769 and HB1770. When the Missouri cemetery association voiced opposition to SB767, that bill’s sponsor sought input from the State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors. The State Board called a meeting to discuss the three bills.

 With regard to each Bill, the funeral association was afforded the opportunity to explain the bill and their intent for the legislation. With regard to the two House bills, the association stated its intent was to elevate the professionalism of the industry. Really?

One of the bills, HB1770, proposes to prohibit preneed sales by any person other than a licensed funeral director. One association representative offered to the State Board that if preneed sales had been restricted in such a nature years ago, the industry would not have suffered through the National Prearranged Services collapse. Such reasoning requires everyone to turn a blind eye to the fact that NPS’ demise was accelerated by a program that was sold by licensed funeral directors. NPS maintained two separate sales programs, and the one sold by funeral directors made promises that were too good to be true.

The association’s twisted logic is further magnified by HB1769. Through this bill, the association supports a new two-year degree/certificate requirement for funeral directors that would eliminate the current apprenticeship program. To make the education requirement more palatable, current licensees will be exempted. Absent from the bill (and any other association proposal) is a requirement for continuing education. So, the association sees a need to educate the state’s future funeral directors, but no need to educate those funeral directors who sold NPS preneed contracts.

When the three bills were met with criticism and opposition at the State Board meeting, association representatives (and supporting Board members) became defensive and accusatory by admonishing the opposition for blocking education needed so badly by the industry. In reality, the bills were opposed because they are protectionist in nature, and poorly written. When the association had ‘floated’ these issues at prior Board meetings, they were met with many of the same criticisms. Such actions only serve to erode the association’s credibility and effectiveness.

In contrast, the recent successes of the IFDA can be attributed to industry representatives who became involved in the association, put aside their differences, and searched for common ground. Through that approach and hard work, the IFDA is earning back credibility with the industry, regulators and legislators.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Earlier this week, the Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors posted their agenda for the September 27-29th meetings, which includes 65 pages of regulation proposals or revisions. The Board has probably heard the same complaint that we have: what the industry needs is less regulation, not more. However, regulations can serve a useful purpose in clarifying ambiguities in applicable law (and Senate Bill No. 1, and this past year’s SB 340 have their share of ambiguities and conflicts).

While most of proposed regulations involve death care licensing issues, the proposals do include some preneed issues. One of those issues is the exemption of cemeteries from Chapter 436 and another is the relationship (or non-relationship) between the preneed seller and the trust investment advisor. Both issues have been addressed in earlier posts to this blog. The debate continues.

The Board’s agenda also includes a modest legislative agenda. Well, modest but slightly controversial. The Board’s decision to raise the trusting requirement from 85% to 100% remains the main proposal.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Missouri’s preneed regulator, the State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors, will meet June 2nd to continue its discussion of agenda for the upcoming legislative session. Due to the lead time required to formulate legislation, the State Board is forced to begin discussions before its 2011 legislative agenda (SB325) even becomes law on August 28th. With the examination process having only begun this past January, the State Board does not even have the basis to evaluate crucial provisions of Senate Bill No. 1. Accordingly, the State Board faces decisions about what its legislative goals should be for the next year.

For the June 2nd meeting (and its prior May 18th meeting), the State Board staff went back to the various legislative proposals made during the summer of 2010 as a starting point. The temptation of Board may be to go through those proposals and evaluate each one on its merits. But the better approach would be to evaluate each proposal in terms of need and consistency with the legislative intent for SB1.

For example, page 9 of the June 2nd agenda includes changes intended to take preneed trusting to 100%. The proposal was discussed on May 18th, put up for a vote, and then withdrawn for further discussion on June 2nd. While it would be worthwhile to have a discussion on the merits of the proposal (including how 100% trusting would benefit both the consumer and the industry), the more important questions are whether the proposal is needed, and whether it is consistent with the legislative intent of SB1.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Continuing the theme that effective preneed regulation requires the occasional update, the Missouri legislature is poised to pass the first ‘patch’ to SB1, the 2009 legislation that ‘re-wrote’ Chapter 436. Senate Bill No. 340 will make four noteworthy changes to Chapter 436.

Concerned that preneed sellers would use variable annuities to fund preneed contracts, Missouri’s insurance regulators sought to have SB1 limit the use of annuities to the single premium variety. This proved burdensome to funeral homes committed to insurance funded preneed. The single premium requirement denied the funeral home the use of variable pay annuities for consumers who either do not qualify for life insurance, or who cannot afford the premium of a life insurance policy. SB340 appropriately allows variable pay annuities to be used to fund preneed contracts so long as death benefits are never less than the premiums paid.

While SB1 preserved the use of joint account funded preneed, small operators encountered problems with banks and the Patriot Act. SB340 will allow POD accounts to be used in funding preneed contracts.

SB1 provided for retroactive application in certain respects. But, with regard to preneed trusts in existence prior to August 28, 2009, SB1 provided for historic law treatment with regard to income distributions to sellers and the use of income to pay trust expenses. Section 436.031 authorized the distribution of trust income to the seller provided the mark to market requirement was satisfied. The section also obligated the seller to pay trust expenses and taxes because of trust income withdrawals. SB340 will delete that provision, and it isn’t clear the intent for this change.

Section 436.031 of the prior law also allowed a preneed seller to designate an investment advisor, and in doing so, relieve the trustee of all asset management responsibilities. This provision was exploited by NPS, and was pivotal in conversion of millions of dollars of preneed trusts to worthless insurance. Seeking a completely independent trustee, SB1 imposed restrictions on who could serve as an investment advisor to the trust. While the NPS experience proved the need to keep the fiduciary responsible for asset management, SB1 went too far in driving a wedge between the asset manager and the seller. SB340 will create an exception to that restriction for the “external” investment advisor who satisfies Section 436.440.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Microsoft’s early efforts to force regular program updates were a nightmare. Like a gremlin that visited at night, the update often changed default settings that you never completely understood in the first place. Sometimes the update would impact the compatibility of other critical programs. To avoid the hassle of these updates, I toggled off the Microsoft updates for several years. And then when a drive failed, dozens and dozens of MS patches and updates had to be downloaded and installed, costing me time and expense.

The preneed regulatory systems set up by various state legislatures in the 1980’s have begun to crash for the same reason: a failure to update. Preneed has changed since the days when bonds paid double digit returns and preneed programs were the fad. California was no different from most states where preneed opponents outnumbered preneed proponents. Legislative compromises favored the traditional operators who opposed preneed, and the resulting law was disjunctive and confusing.

As time passed, more and more California funeral homes began to offer preneed. In most cases, it started as an accommodation to the consumer who sought to put funds aside. Eventually, competition not only drove all funeral homes to offer some form of preneed, it also drove them to factor preneed into their business plan. The investment markets also became more complex.

But, the California funeral industry left the preneed law update toggled off, and instead, stretched the law’s ambiguities the best it could to “authorize” new business practices. And, the preneed regulators (first the State Board, and now the Bureau) often played the same game. The Bureau and the CFDA are now locked in a lawsuit (over an antiquated law) that will leave both sides bruised and defensive. The posture taken by the AG suggests the fight could be nasty. But the facts suggest, the State should look to make prospective changes.

NPS exploited the weaknesses of Missouri’s 1986 law, and that company’s collapse gave Missouri regulators the ammunition required to force a new preneed operating system on its funeral industry. The 2009 law has its flaws, and needs changes (other than those in SB340), but preneed life continues in Missouri. Missouri regulators would like to go back in time to change some of the prior law’s flaws, but the push to make retroactive changes has been measured.

In Illinois, the IFDA put together a master trust and an insurance program that pushed the envelope beyond the Comptroller’s tolerance. The Comptroller’s responded much in the same vein as the California regulators did. While entrenched in a lawsuit, the Comptroller pushed his legislative agenda through the legislature. But, Illinois got more of a preneed system patch than a new operating system. Eventually, Illinois is due for a significant preneed system upgrade.

Nebraska is another state that may be due for some form of a preneed update. With a reporting system based on tax cost basis, preneed regulators want to introduce market value into the computation for income distributions. The objective has merit, but the 1987 law can only be stretched so far.

Getting a preneed law that works for both operators and regulators will never be a “one and done” project. Occasional updates will be required.
 

• 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

Triggered by the NPS collapse, preneed reform rolled out of the Missouri legislature like a tsunami. When the funeral industry was slow to organize and respond to the situation, legislators worked with state officials to imposed sweeping changes. While SB1 does reflect input provided to the State Board by the industry, the law has flaws and omissions that need to be addressed. It will take time to determine how best to revise SB1, but for the current legislative session, I have a short Christmas wish list:

• A continuing education requirement – as a profession, funeral directors have an obligation to stay abreast of new issues and changes. Aside from preneed reform, the industry is in transition in many aspects. Few professionals like forced educational requirements, but the time has come for the Missouri funeral industry.
• Section 208.010.4 – no one can fault the local MO Healthnet worker who interprets this section to require an assistance applicant to purchase a Chapter 436 preneed contract. This law needs to be revised to clarify that other acceptable forms of final expense funds may be excluded for asset testing.

Merry Christmas!
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors met June 15th and 16th to consider legislative proposals offered for technical corrections to SB1. In a prior post, this author took exception to one of the proposals made by a Board member to raise Missouri’s trusting requirement from 85% to 100%. However, a majority of the State Board did not, and voted to include 100% trusting among its proposals to the Missouri Legislature later this year.

While the submitted proposal stated this was ‘a consumer protection matter’, the Board discussion was addressed to the fact insurance funded preneed provides the funeral home a better return. Trust funded preneed was criticized for lacking the investment vehicle to recover the 15% of consumer payments retained by the funeral home when the contract is sold. So, how does the 100% enhance consumer protection?

Historically, trust funded preneed in Missouri has been a liability to industry. When allowed to keep 20% and withdraw all income, funeral homes have been left to service a contract on an amount that may not even cover the costs of merchandise after 15 years.

SB1 takes three key steps towards rectifying that situation. First, the ‘retainage’ the seller may keep has been reduced from 20% to 15%. Second, the trust is now required to accrue all income. Third, and most elusive, SB1 now allows sellers to pool their trusts for investment purposes.

Prior to SB1, sellers were prohibited from commingling their trusts. The accounting systems available in the 1980s were not sophisticated enough to track both consumer and seller funds when multiple sellers were involved.

In the defense of the Board’s position, a trust that averages a gross return of 4% will be hard pressed to pay the funeral home enough to cover its at need prices in 10 years. As more funeral homes are pressed to provide preneed, the growth in ‘guaranteed preneed’ eats into the long-term profitability of the business. An indirect answer to the justification to the 100% trusting requirement.

The weakness in this position lies in the alternative that funeral homes are forced to take: insurance funding and the costs to the consumer.

If the funeral home has to offer preneed, and it has costs associated with providing preneed, then insurance funded preneed becomes the vehicle of choice. One of the knocks on insurance is its costs to the consumer when coverage is purchased with installments.

For the older consumer who cannot afford a single premium policy, the financing of the policy over five or ten years will cause the cost of the funeral to increase substantially.

All forms of preneed are beginning to include separate charges or fees to the consumer. It becomes incumbent upon the consumer to approach the preneed transaction with more questions, including: How much is this going to cost me?
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The next round of legislative proposals have been posted to the State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors website. At the top of the list is whether the trusting requirement should be raised from 85% to 100%. The proponent believes this will enhance consumer protections. He is not alone.

The Illinois Legislature heard the same from Rep. Dan Brady last year. And, the Funeral Consumers Alliance has been advocating the same position for years. But, does this requirement truly enhance consumer protection?

Competition dictates the type of preneed program a funeral home maintains. Metropolitan funeral homes often have no choice but to maintain proactive programs that require training, marketing, management and dedicated staffing. To offset program costs, the funeral home must receive revenue from the preneed sale. Setting the trusting requirement at 100% forces the funeral home towards insurance products, and their commissions. A legislative agenda that forecloses the trusting option makes little sense when insurance played a major factor in both the NPS and IFDA failures.

For the consumer’s perspective, a major weakness in the old Missouri law was the preneed seller’s right to withdraw income from the preneed trust. Without the accrual of income, the preneed contract became less portable as it aged. While SB1 may have other trust issues to address, it did fix the income accrual issue.

Some have argued that SB1 did not go far enough in providing the consumer refund rights to the income earned by a trust. The seller of the guaranteed contract is afforded the right to retain the income on cancellation because he takes the risks associated with the price guaranties. But prior to SB1, there was little authority for the non-guaranteed contract. If the preneed purchaser places a premium on refund rights, then the non-guaranteed contract authorized by SB1 is the better option.

With regard to Illinois law, the glaring weakness regarded the self-trusting provision and the lack of fiduciary oversight. With trusting already set at 95%, many larger funeral homes were already dependent on insurance funding. Deprived of revenues to maintain a trust program, funeral homes relied upon the IFDA. The lack of oversight and transparency lead to abuses by past IFDA leadership.

SB1682 took the crucial steps of requiring corporate fiduciaries, and imposing the prudent investor rule. But a question remains about who should provide oversight to the preneed fiduciary.

So, how does 100% trusting further enhance consumer protections in either Missouri or Illinois?

The debate over insurance versus trust has been waging for twenty years. While each has its strengths and weaknesses, the death care industry has done little to offer the consumer meaningful options for funding and price guarantees. Establishing barriers to either form of funding (or to non-guaranteed contracts) will do little to enhance consumer protections.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Missouri's funeral industry has been given 30 days to submit proposals for revisions to the preneed law that went into effect last August 28th.  By email, the State Board has provided the guidelines for submitting changes that will then be discussed by the Board at public hearings to be held in June.  The Board has it's own July 15th deadline to adopt any of the proposals and submit them to the Division of Professional Registration. 

For those operators who are displeased with the new law, the clock is running.

 

• 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

The General Laws Committee of the Missouri Senate will hold a hearing this Wednesday (April 7th) on SB 1025. This bill provides hope to many small, rural funeral directors who would rather avoid the preneed transaction and the regulatory morass of SB1.

The bill would add a new Section 208.010.5 whereby individuals seeking to spend down assets to qualify for assistance could establish an irrevocable trust of up to $10,000. The trust could only be used for funeral and burial expenses. The section would also exclude the arrangement from Chapter 436.

When a similar provision was included in last year’s SB1, the funeral directors association expressed concern that the arrangement would be abused. However, the requirements of SB1 have proven burdensome and confusing to the industry, extremely so for the funeral home that only accepts “pre-arrangement funds” as an accommodation.

A Chapter 208 final expense trust would provide the consumer and his Missouri funeral operator a much-needed alternative to the joint account contract.
 

• 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

1. Losing 20 pounds
2. Quit smoking
3. Spend more time with the family
4. Find an independent trustee

And so goes the list of New Year resolutions for the Illinois funeral director, with the last being forced on the industry by SB 1682.

Funeral directors and consumers can learn more about the new independent trustee requirements by visiting the Comptroller's website for SB 1682 information and  SB1682 FAQ issues .

• 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

The first week under the new preneed law was a confusing one for the Missouri funeral industry. SB1 has many drafting conflicts and ambiguities, and that has give rise to different interpretations from the Attorney General’s Office, the State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors, and the death care industry.

The State Board and the Attorney General’s Office have been criticized for the NPS debacle. While some of that criticism may be justified, NPS exploited the weaknesses of Chapter 436 (and the Board’s enforcement budget), and kept the regulators at bay for years. With SB1, the regulators have been given the keys to a new vehicle for preneed oversight and enforcement, but they are not in total agreement about the map to follow.

The State Board’s immediate agenda are the emergency rules that will keep the preneed industry functioning for the next 3 to 9 months. Consequently, debate over interpretations must be brief and concessions must be made. In some respects, the resulting emergency rules will be overly burdensome. But, these emergency rules will be the law until regulations are promulgated pursuant to the normal rulemaking process. Funeral homes that disregard the emergency rules, do so at substantial risks. It is crucial that funeral directors also understand that the emergency rules will impact the preneed contracts sold prior to August 28th.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As its first step in educating the preneed industry about SB1’s requirements, the Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors posted the Top 12 Changes to Missouri’s Pre-Need Law to its website. However, I had trouble getting past No. 2. The explanation about fiduciary reimbursements of sales expense on Pre-SB1 sales sent me back to SB1’s ‘Grandfather clause’:

436.412. Each preneed contract made before August 28, 2009, and all payments and disbursements under such contract shall continue to be governed by this chapter as the chapter existed at the time the contract was made.

As authorized by RSMo. Section 436.027, it has been fairly standard practice for Missouri preneed contracts to recite that Sellers may retain the first 20% of the purchaser’s payments. However, the State Board is advising all Purchaser payments, including PreSB1 business, must be deposited to trust before the 20% sales expense is retained.

While the State Board’s intent may have been to address the old statute’s failure to address when purchaser payments must be deposited to trust, the Board has overstepped its authority if its intent is to require sellers to deposit payments on PreSB1 contracts to trust without retaining sales expense.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

For the past fifteen years or so, Missouri cemeteries could sell markers and memorials on a preneed basis without making delivery of the marker, or depositing purchaser payments into a trust. RSMo. Section 214.387 authorized cemeteries to use a segregated account to hold an amount equal to 110% of the marker’s wholesale cost. If the purchaser did not want the marker delivered, the cemetery could set up a bank account to hold the required amount. The procedure was easier and cheaper than establishing a trust account. But, the cemetery’s authority to use the segregated account came to an end on August 28th with the effective date of SB296.

If delivery is not made within a “reasonable time”, the cemetery must now deposit 80% of a purchaser’s payments on cemetery merchandise (including markers) to a trust account or an escrow account.

The elimination of the segregated account also had theunintended consequence of subjecting the preneed cemetery merchandise sales to the jurisdiction of the Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors.

To the extent cemeteries are subject to licensure by the Office of Endowed Care Cemeteries, the State Board has tentatively approved an emergency rule that exempts preneed merchandise sales that are made in conjunction with a burial space with endowed care. Ostensibly, cemeteries that are either non-endowed (or exempt from Chapter 214 licensure) would be subject to Chapter 436 if they sell merchandise on a preneed basis.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Reform in Illinois inched closer to reality with Governor Quinn's "amendatory veto" of SB1682.  If accepted by the Illinois legislature, the reform bill will become law on January 31, 2010.

However, the Governor is seeking a 30 day window between the deadline for the report due from the Funeral Burial Task Force and SB1682's effective date.  It is doubtful much could be done to change SB1682 during that 30 day period.  Accordingly, the Governor's action adds confusion for the Illinois death care industry.  

If the amendatory veto is approved, Illinois funeral homes and cemeteries should plan for the January 31, 2010 effective date.    

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors meets August 25th to vote on emergency rules that are intended to keep the preneed industry functioning when SB1 goes into effect on August 28th. While numerous issues have been identified to the State Board as deserving of emergency status, four stand out above the rest: licenses, the new trusting of all payments, preneed contract requirements and the cemetery exemptions.

To sell preneed after Thursday, funeral homes must have a license. It doesn’t matter whether the funeral home is offering joint account contracts, trust-funded contracts or insurance-funded contracts, a seller license is required. The same is true if the funeral home intends to honor a preneed contract sold after Thursday. A preneed provider license is required. A preneed agent registration will also be needed for each individual that sells a preneed contract.

But, the State Board does not have the authority to issue a license until Friday. So, the State Board will vote on a special form called the Notice of Intent to Apply for Licensure/Registration that will be used for both licenses and the preneed agent registration.

Once the form is approved, the State Board will place it on their website for downloading. Applicants should consider executing the form in duplicate.

Completed copies of the form could be emailed (in a PDF format) or faxed to the State Board (save the transmission as evidence of the filing). An original copy will have to be mailed to the State Board. The other original copy should then be posted where the funeral home would normally display its establishment license.

It will be near to impossible for preneed sellers to establish new trusts in time for business written after Thursday. Accordingly, the State Board will consider whether to allow newly ‘licensed’ sellers to establish an account with a bank for use as a clearing account for purchaser payments on contracts sold after August 27th.

The new law also will require changes in the preneed contracts sold after Thursday. Most of the Missouri preneed industry utilizes printed contract forms that can take weeks to prepare. Consequently, the State Board is considering a rule to permit continued use of those old contract forms.

Finally, Missouri’s cemeteries are waiting to hear the State Board’s interpretation of the cemetery exemptions from licensing and Chapter 436 compliance. Cemeteries will have their own licensing and trusting requirements under Missouri’s Chapter 214.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Missouri’s Chapter 436 reform law goes into effect on August 28th, and the Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors will have the responsibility of implementing the new changes. However, the State Board is caught in a Catch 22 situation.

Many of the changes will have to be implemented through regulations, but the Board doesn’t have Chapter 436 rulemaking authority until August 28th. For example, preneed sellers and providers will have to be licensed on August 28th . Since this is a new requirement, every preneed seller in the state will have to file an application and fee to be licensed. There are hundreds of funeral homes that will seek a seller’s license, and not a one can sell a preneed contract until the license is in hand. But, the Board can’t begin passing regulations about the licenses until August 28th. To avoid a shutdown of the preneed industry, the State Board will have to improvise through the use of emergency regulations and temporary licenses.

Accordingly, the State Board will be meeting every week during the month of August to establish its priorities for Chapter 436 regulations. The Board’s agenda for those meetings are set out on its website.

The State Board is seeking input from funeral directors in the form of written questions or comments regarding the agenda issues. By seeking comments in advance of publishing proposed rules, the State Board is hoping to expedite the regulation approval process.

Historically, some Chapter 333 rules have taken up a year or more to pass. The rulemaking process requires a Board meeting to discuss the issue and direct the legal staff to draft a proposal. Then a few months later at the next meeting, the Board will consider the proposal, and if acceptable, submit the proposal to the Secretary of State’s office for the publication process. With the publication, there is a comment period. Then, the comments are discussed at the next scheduled Board meeting. Depending upon the comments, the proposal may be revised, and if so, there will be another publication and comment period. All in all, the rulemaking process can be lengthy.

In the meantime, the Missouri preneed industry is waiting on the Board for directions on such issues as contract disclosures and trust administration requirements.

Missouri is in for a long, painstaking period of change.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

My kids hate August because it means its time to head back to school.  This year's student population in Missouri will be a little larger than last year's.  The Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors has released its meeting agenda, and the state's preneed industry will be given four crash courses beginning July 30th. 

Generally, freshman orientation is optional, but these classes may start defining a new business model for Missouri's preneed industry.

• 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

For twenty-five years, Missouri funeral directors have had it easy with regard to accounting for consumers’ preneed payments. Chapter 436 required the preneed seller to maintain 80% of the preneed contract sales price in trust. The Missouri law also allowed the preneed seller to withdraw income so long as the 80% threshold was maintained. Consequently, the seller’s trust accounting was fairly simple. However, Senate Bill No.1 has rewritten Chapter 436, and in doing so, will impose a substantial change of accounting upon the Missouri preneed industry.

To establish an audit trail, SB1 requires every payment made on a trust-funded contract to be deposited with the fiduciary institution. The law will also require the preneed trust to accrue income, which the consumer may transfer to an alternative funeral provider. Consumers can also request account information. All of this will require the preneed fiduciary to make monthly allocations to the trust’s individual preneed accounts.

To an extent, the new accounting requirements will also be incorporated into annual regulatory reports required of preneed sellers.

A new era of accountability begins in Missouri.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A little more than a month has lapsed since the Missouri legislature passed a reform preneed bill, but the death care industry remains stuck in neutral until Governor Nixon signs SB1 into law. 

With an effective date of August 28th looming two months away, regulators and funeral homes (and cemeteries) face licensing and document deadlines.  The State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors will have the task of licensing hundreds of preneed sellers and providers.  Preneed sellers will have the task of establishing new trusts and preneed contracts. 

This should make for a busy Show Me summer.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Federal and state regulators can not quite agree on how to define the preneed transaction.  Federal regulators tend to view the preneed transaction as a current sale of goods and services (where the delivery is deferred until a future date).  In contrast, state regulators are increasingly defining the transaction in terms that defer consummation of the sale until the beneficiary's death.   This is reflected in a bill (SB1682) passed recently by the Illinois Legislature.

Through a deletion to 225 ILCS 45/1b (b), the preneed seller will no longer be allowed to retain a finance charge from the purchaser payments.  While not all preneed sellers include a finance charge on their installment sales, some do in order to offset the earnings lost when the purchase is paid over time.   

• 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

At the risk of plagiarizing the Missouri Funeral Directors and Embalmers Association, Missouri preneed funeral sellers, providers, fiduciaries and insurers face a new ballgame that will begin August 29th without a complete set of rules and guidelines. Funeral directors have a general idea where the game will be played, but they’re not quite sure what rules the umpires will use or how closely the game will be called.

In contrast, Missouri’s cemetery industry has been left to guess where their game will be played. Through last minute changes, the cemetery bill was pared back to those essential provisions required to authorize trust-funded preneed sales and a fixed-distribution provision for endowed care trusts. The resulting provisions do not begin to tell the underlying issues.

Funeral directors get the first crack at learning their new ‘rules’ on May 28th when the MFDEA sponsors a session with the Chapter 436 umpires. Based on the success of that session, one of the 436 umpires (the State Board) will probably explore regional meetings with funeral homes.

In the meantime, Missouri’s cemeteries will need to regroup in an effort to work out a consensus on preneed and endowed care legislation.

For a copy of the changes to Chapter 436 click here, and for Chapter 214 changes click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The battle to reform Illinois’ preneed funeral law was renewed by the Comptroller’s office with the release of his Amendment to Senate Bill 1862. Reform in Illinois will take months, and the final product may differ substantially from the Comptroller’s proposal. However, SB 1862 flags Mr. Hynes’ priorities, and one of those priorities could force a shotgun marriage between the IFDA and some of the small funeral homes critical of the Association.

The Illinois preneed law authorizes a preneed seller to act as its own trustee when the seller’s preneed funds are less than $500,000. This provision is a reflection of the difficulty and expense encountered by small operators attempting to find affordable trust services. However, the IFDA exploited this provision with regard to its master trust, and consequently, the Comptroller wants to eliminate the self-trusted arrangement.

The advantage of an association master trust is that it provides the requisite economies of scale to provide affordable trust administration to the smallest funeral home operator. But, many Illinois operators shunned the IFDA master trust because of a lack of transparency. The amount of preneed funds held in self-trusted arrangements could be substantial. If the Comptroller seeks to apply the elimination of the self-trusted exception retroactively to existing trusts, the cost of corporate fiduciary services and the scarcity of such fiduciaries may lead these operators back to the IFDA, perhaps with the numbers to force changes at the Association.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Like the Swine Flu, a preneed virus has been spreading across the Midwest.   Looking for a cure, state legislators and regulators have been forming research teams.  It all started last summer, with Missouri’s Chapter 436 (funeral) working group and Chapter 214 (cemetery) working group.  Now, Illinois is establishing a preneed task force, and Kansas is forming a cemetery committee.  But, in contrast to the Missouri Chapter 436 working group, the forthcoming preneed research teams are limiting the industry’s involvement in the proceedings.  It’s not that the patient has a terminal condition that is contagious, but rather a reflection that organizing industry participation can be akin to herding cats.

Take the May edition of the American Funeral Director as an example. There are no less than six articles addressing preneed. As Mr. Creedy points out, everyone in the industry has an opinion and some can’t help but apply a general prescription for the preneed transaction. But, preneed is governed by more than 50 different state laws, making the transaction impervious to such generalizations. Boiling the issues down for the sake of an editor’s guidelines only contributes to the confusion of our industry members. While these types of articles often quote experts with opposing (and often, valid) opinions, death care operators tend to remember only the opinions that support their preneed program (or, supports their opposition to another form of preneed).

The preneed problem involves complex issues that require an in-depth analysis by our respective state legislators and regulators. For the sake of our consumers, we need to provide legislators and regulators objective and unbiased information about all aspects of preneed.

This patient is very ill, but not terminal. There are no easy cures or solutions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Missouri’s preneed reform legislation will be amended on the House floor in the next day or so, and some of the Representatives have heard that old phrase about legislating morality. There is some truth to that phrase, and to some of the other objections raised against the reform legislation.

Preneed oversight will impose a substantial financial burden on a strapped state government and regulators lack the requisite experience to define the future course of preneed. However, these objections seem to wither when read in conjunction with the ‘excuses’ of the IFDA member funeral homes.

In a nutshell, Illinois funeral directors did not perform due diligence with regard to the management of their master trust. Instead, funeral directors placed their trust in their elected leadership, who then placed their trust in an investment advisor.

For those of us who work in this industry there is one given fact: funeral directors are caregivers by nature, and would rather spend their time with a family than the preneed trust’s accountant, attorney and investment manager. Well respected industry leaders are calling the current preneed situation “nuts”, and recommend that funeral directors focus on what they do best: serve the family. This advice resonates with most funeral directors, but they also know that families have come to expect the preneed option. But if preneed is to be offered, funeral directors must begin doing their homework.

Two years ago, Sue Simon wrote about Missouri’s triple-dipping trusts. One might have thought NPS’ demise brought this issue to an end, but that is not the case. A program utilizing a variable annuity product is being marketed to Missouri funeral directors. The promises made with regard to this product seem familiar to those made to the IFDA.

Depending on the final version of Missouri’s preneed reform legislation, funeral directors and fiduciaries may be forced to explain the condition of their preneed trusts. It would be best to put the Illinois Secretary of State’s questions to the investment advisor before the investment is made, rather than after.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Officially, its called House Committee Substitute for Senate Substitute for Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 1.   Some of the ‘unofficial’ titles given this bill are not fit for publication.

It doesn’t matter who you talk to about Missouri’s current preneed reform bill, everyone has a complaint.  Even the consumer advocates.  Under normal circumstances, this general mood of discontent would ensure the defeat of a legislative proposal.  But these are not normal times, and it is appropriate that the Columbia Daily Tribune would remind the state of that fact by speaking with former Senator Jerry Howard.

In the early 1990’s, Senator Howard took on the problems of Chapter 436 and Chapter 214. While Senator Howard had success in addressing Missouri’s perpetual care law, Chapter 436 reform proved a greater hurdle.  More than a dozen years ago, representatives from the funeral and cemetery industries met with regulators to draft revisions to Chapter 436.  Although National Prearranged Service representatives attended those meetings, and provided tacit approval of the draft amendments, NPS had its own lobbying agenda.

Senator Howard took those amendment proposals to legislature, but could not obtain the necessary support of his fellow legislators.  Key legislators had been prepped for the proposals’ weaknesses.

HCS SS SCS SB1 has some flaws that need to be worked out, but time is running out for the current legislative session.  If the choice comes down to this bill or no bill, this bill should be passed with an understanding that its flaws need to be addressed by regulations and technical corrections in the next legislative session.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Illinois and Missouri have more in common than they may realize. Consumers and funeral directors are blaming state regulators for their current preneed problems. Looking to avoid that hot seat, regulators have been stating their excuses/defenses. If legislators are to correct the flaws in their state’s preneed oversight, they need to put partisan politics aside and objectively assess those excuses.

In response to criticism about the IFDA master trust, the Illinois Comptroller’s office states: we don’t regulate trusts. With regard to preneed audits, the Comptroller follows the money from the consumer to the funeral home and into the IFDA trust. Once there, the Comptroller did not provide an extensive review of the trust’s activities. (Summary, it’s not my job to provide oversight once the funds make it to trust.)

The chink in the Comptroller’s IFDA armor is that the consumer funds never made it into a corporate trustee’s hands. The Comptroller’s excuse (we thought they had a corporate fiduciary) has funeral directors boiling. Rightfully so. While news reports and funeral homes have garbled the legal issues, the Comptroller’s function was to license preneed sellers, and for the IFDA, that meant the responsibility to ensure the organization had an appropriate fiduciary.

Missouri’s Division of Professional Registration and State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors have received the same type of criticism with regard to the NPS collapse. Those regulators have appropriately countered with explanations about how Chapter 436 tied their hands. Legislators and state agencies sponsored meetings last summer to obtain recommendations for improving Missouri’s preneed oversight. Those recommendations included the decision to continue the State Board’s jurisdiction over the preneed and to provide that entity greater licensing and oversight authorities.

Preneed regulation should begin with the licensing/registration of who may sell preneed. (I beg to differ with Ill. State Rep. Dan Brady, and those who assert preneed should only be sold by licensed funeral directors.) But that issue aside, who should provide oversight once the consumer’s funds are deposited to trust? I tend to agree with the Comptroller’s office that a state’s financial regulator is better suited for this job. However, there are ‘gaps’ to that recommendation. (State banking regulators do not have express jurisdiction over fiduciary institutions that derive their powers from a charter granted by the Office of Thrift Supervision or the Office of Comptroller of the Currency.)

While preneed licensing and payment administration oversight should be placed with a state’s agency charged with establishing minimum competency standards, oversight of the preneed trust should be with the state’s banking regulator. Federal preemption issues could be eliminated by statutory provisions that require the seller’s trustee to consent to limited jurisdiction as a condition to accepting the account. Preneed is too complex, too big, for a single state agency.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It’s a fact that the NPS collapse threatens the viability of many Missouri funeral homes. It’s also a fact the Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors had jurisdiction over NPS and did not shut the company down in time to prevent the current crisis. In a response, a group of the injured funeral homes are calling for the transfer of preneed oversight to a new “commission” comprised of nine funeral directors and a consumer advocate. If this proposal constitutes the sum total of changes to be made to Chapter 436, it represents nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig.

Missouri’s State Board was never provided the tools it needed to effectively regulate the preneed transaction. Chapter 436 was intended to keep the preneed door open by establishing minimal contract and trusting requirements, without providing an effective mechanism for oversight. The State Board was never granted rulemaking authority to even address the transaction as it evolved over the years. Understanding the limitations of a state budget, the State Board’s funding for oversight was also restricted by a $2 per preneed contract fee. Restrictions were also placed on the Attorney General’s office regarding attorneys assigned to the State Board.

To suggest Missouri’s problems are simply a “governance issue” is an insult to the funeral directors who have given up their time to serve on the State Board. From time to time, there have been valid criticisms about whether the State Board members have been influenced by self-interests. But, the overriding goal of the State Board member has been the advancement of the industry’s professional standards. Current State Board members may not understand the economic nuances of all variations of the preneed transaction, but how will an expansion of preneed oversight from 5 funeral directors to 9 funeral directors ensure that objective?

The Chapter 436 review process opened last summer with the question of whether preneed oversight should be moved to an independent state authority. There are advantages and disadvantages to putting preneed oversight under an industry board. The major advantage is that the industry board should be more familiar with a complex transaction. While independent preneed regulators can be very competent (Iowa for example), more often than not, the independent preneed regulator finds the transaction as confusing as any other person. The spokeswoman for the Illinois Comptroller’s Office has acknowledged as much.

Missouri’s legislature should leave preneed oversight with the State Board and focus its attentions on providing that entity the authorities needed for effective oversight.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Consumers and funeral directors are asking their state regulators how they let the National Prearranged Services collapse to happen. With the exception of Missouri and Iowa, the NPS preneed contract was generally an insurance-funded transaction, and state insurance regulators are taking most of the heat. It is a very different story in Missouri, as witnessed by two competing reform bills: Senate Bill 1 and House Bill 853. For Missouri, NPS used a trust-funded preneed contact (that was subsequently invested with Lincoln Memorial policies). As a consequence, Missouri legislators have made higher trusting requirements and heightened fiduciary responsibilities their top priorities for both bills.

Missouri’s Chapter 436 was written before Rev. Rul. 87-127, when trusts were king. The law also reflects the historic perception of the guaranteed preneed contract (one that is shared by the Internal Revenue Service and the Securities Exchange Commission): the transaction is a sale of goods and services by the death care company.

Chapter 436 allows the preneed seller to retain the purchaser’s first payments until 20% of the sales price has been collected. A 20% sales expense retention provides smaller funeral homes the funds required to maintain a program to compete with larger operations, including the national companies. All subsequent payments must then be deposited to trust. The law was intended ensure there were sufficient trust funds for the funeral home’s “costs” at the time of performance (in contrast to the amount the consumer would have to pay for the funeral at a future date). Consequently, Chapter 436 allows the seller to also withdraw realized income to the extent the trust’s market value equaled the deposits made to trust.

What distinguishes Chapter 436 from most other permissive preneed state laws (such as Iowa) is the public policy decision to require income accrual. By requiring the trust to accrue income, these states have placed a ‘cap’ on the seller’s recovery of preneed program costs. Their message is that the seller must make do with the front-end retention of payments. These states still view the preneed transaction as a sale of goods and services (allowing the recovery of the sales expense costs), but they will not allow the preneed seller to recover other operating expenses from trust funds intended for future performances. In this respect, SB 1 and HB 853 are similar. While both would require the accrual of trust income, only the Senate bill recognizes the preneed contract as a sale of goods and services.

In an attempt to enhance consumer protection and preserve the funeral home’s ability to offer a trust-funded preneed program, SB 1 would raise Missouri’s trusting percentage from 80% to a hybrid 85%. This trusting change will have the greatest impact on small funeral homes with dedicated salesmen and the larger, proactive independent funeral home/cemetery operations.

As the retention percentage is reduced, economies of scale will make it more difficult for small operators to maintain a separate program. While the larger proactive preneed program may have the volume of sales to offset the loss of 5%, they must contend with SB 1’s ‘pro rata’ recovery of sales expense.

The retention of the sales expense from the first payments simplifies the procedures for compensating a program’s salesmen. Missouri’s SB 1 recognizes this issue in that it authorizes the first 5% of the sales price to be retained. While SB 1 allows the seller to collect an additional 10% of the contract sales price, it must do so pro ratably from each subsequent payment. This pro rata approach imposes a greater administrative burden on the seller, contributing to the costs of the preneed program.

In contrast to SB 1, HB 853 requires 100% of a purchaser’s payments to be trusted. The bill’s advocates claim the preneed funds belong to the purchaser, not the funeral home, and consumer protection will be enhanced. Essentially, the bill’s supporters are re-defining the trust-funded preneed contract as a transaction of accommodation to the preneed purchaser. Funeral homes will be required to provide program administration and tax advantages that the consumer cannot otherwise obtain from a bank.

Deprived of a source of funds to offset preneed program expenses, proactive sellers will be forced to utilize insurance funded programs. While insurance offers cost advantages to the younger consumer, many typical preneed purchasers may not qualify for insurance, or may not be able to afford the required premiums. In the end, HB 853 will reduce the preneed options available to consumers and the industry.

• 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 Missouri Senate Committee assigned the task of preneed funeral reform posted a substitute bill to the Legislature’s website on February 6th: SCS SB1. For those who participated in the Chapter 436 Working Group meetings last summer, this bill may seem vaguely familiar. During those meetings, the Division of Professional Registration circulated a 41-page draft proposal for discussion with industry representatives. However, discussions regarding the proposal bogged down when industry members could not agree over several issues. Eventually, the Working Group issued a “Recommendations” statement.

Turning back to the Division staff, the Senate committee has dusted off that earlier draft proposal and added provisions based on the Chapter 436 Working Group Recommendations. This approach is sure to revive the disagreements that derailed last summer’s meetings.

With the NPS failure as a backdrop, the Missouri legislature will have little patience for the internal bickering that has marred prior reform efforts. While SCS SB1 has some legitimate flaws, the status quo is no longer an option.

• 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

For twenty-two years many Missouri funeral directors have deposited 80% of the preneed funeral contract purchase price into trust, and withdrawn all income in excess of that deposit. For a $5,000 contract sold in 1998, the funeral director has been required to maintain $4,000 in trust. When that contract is performed in 2008, the funeral director is authorized under Chapter 436 to withdraw an amount equal to that deposited to trust: $4,000. Today, and for the foreseeable future, that distribution will exceed that contract’s ‘value’ under the mark-to-market approach. Depending upon the facts of a particular trust, the difference between these two approaches could exceed the trust’s annual realized income. This puts the trust further into the hole and threatens the funeral director’s long-term viability.

Assume the funeral director has a $1,000,000 trust with a contract population that averages 10 years in duration. On the average, 10% of the trust’s contracts are serviced each year, or $100,000. Depending upon trust’s asset allocation, the current financial crisis could have trimmed a third of that trust’s value. If a 25% value decline is assumed, the funeral director’s trust is worth $750,000. If the trust’s value remains ‘flat’ over the next year and the funeral director services 10% of the trust’s contracts, he will withdraw $25,000 ‘excess’ value over the next year, or 2.5% of the trust’s value. For trusts invested exclusively in fixed income, the difference may exceed the trust’s actual return.

Switching to the mark-to-market approach will be painful for funeral directors. For that ten-year old, $5,000 preneed contract, the funeral director would receive $3,000. Today, that service might sell for $6,500. The cost to provide the service will vary from funeral home to funeral home, but many will find it difficult to do so for a profit when only paid $3,000. Of course, there has been income distributed from the trust over the past ten years, but not necessarily to the funeral director performing the contract.

Consequently, Missouri legislators need to consider two important Chapter 436 revisions: the mark-to-market approach and trust income accrual. If the Missouri funeral director had accrued the income and earned a net 3.5% over the past 10 years, the mark-to-market approach would have paid the funeral director $5,642 instead of $3,000.

The mark-to-market approach has proven a bitter pill for Illinois funeral directors, and legislators should expect a similar reaction from some Missouri funeral directors.  The legislature can not retroactively apply the mark-to-market approach, but funeral directors need to consider whether the approach is in the best interests of existing business.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In terms of the toxic NPS fallout, Texas ranks a close second to Missouri.  In response, the Texas Department of Banking has released a legislative proposal aimed at closing what it perceives are the loopholes in Chapter 154 of the Texas Finance Code. 

To facilitate discussion of the issues with death care operators, insurance companies and fiduciaries, the Department of Banking released an Explanation of Intent of Proposed Changes.   A few of the DOB issues include:

• Putting cemeteries on notice that they could be defined as a "funeral provider".
• The seller/permit holder must exercise reasonable controls over contract administration.
• The elimination of third-party preneed sellers.
• A minimum net worth of $100,000 for permit holders.
• A standard information brochure that covers both forms of funding.
• Income allocation requirements for non-guaranteed items.
• Distribution documentation.
• A new guaranty fund.

 

• 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

While the Wall Street bail out plan has many flaws, one of its proposals has wide-based support: the concept of increasing the limit on insured deposits to $250,000.  According to the New York Times, the driving force behind this proposal wasn't the mega-banks, but rather our local banks.  

The Independent Community Bankers of America represents approximately 8,000 local banks, and employed a grassroots approach to prevail over the proposals of the larger financial institutions.  The organization's president stated that "we might be small, but we're pretty nimble."   Words funeral directors may want to keep in mind when they attempt to respond to legislative efforts this winter.  

If the Wall Street bail out passes with the $250,000 FDIC limit, small funeral operators will have more flexibility in using deposit accounts as preneed funding. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Why did you agree to that?

That's the question I have been getting to the Chapter 436 Working Group recommendations regarding i) the deposit of all purchaser payments to trust, and ii) some form of periodic statement to the consumer.   One answer would be that we see too many news reports like this one.  

The primary objective for these two recommendations is the establishment of an audit trail.  Require all payments to go through the fiduciary's hands, and require the fiduciary to give the consumer some form of notice.  If the regulator does not have the resources to monitor the transaction, give the consumer the opportunity to do so.  The recommendation does not deny the seller the right to recover sales expenses.

Yes, the procedure is burdensome, will add cost to the transaction, and will require change.   What are the alternatives?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Concurrent with the hearing held on her Liquidation Plan, the Special Deputy Receiver posted a financial report to the Lincoln Memorial Life/NPS website. As with most financial statements, explanatory notes at the end of the report provide some insights to the failed NPS empire. While prior documents have disclosed that the companies have a deficient of nearly one billion dollars, the SDR report breaks that number down in terms of trust funded contracts and insurance funded contracts. 

Insurance funded preneed contracts account for almost $600 million of the unfunded deficit, twice the number of that for trust-funded contracts ($289 million).   The explanatory notes identify six trusts maintained by NPS. The notes identify Trust VI as that of Iowa, and the size of Trust IV would suggest that it was for Missouri. One of the other trusts may be a special account, and if one were to assume the other three are other ‘state trusts’, that would leave the other 15 NPS states as exclusive insurance funded states. There is no doubt that NPS exploited Missouri’s laws regarding trust funded contracts, but a greater harm was done to consumers through NPS' exploitation of state laws governing insurance funded contracts.

 

Of the NPS trusts, the Missouri deficit is the largest by far ($248 million). This number has been isolated to Missouri regulators as justification for raising the state’s trusting requirement to 100%. That argument ignores the fact that Iowa also has an 80% trusting requirement, yet only has a deficit of $23.5 million (a tenth of Missouri’s). The difference can be attributed to the difference in oversight and regulatory requirements. The argument also ignores the fact that Kansas, a state with a 100% trusting requirement, has a deficit of approximately $22 million (all of which is based on insurance-funded contracts).

 

Another explanatory note that may suggest that Missouri’s oversight is lacking is a note payable of $10 million owed by NPS to the Missouri preneed trust.  

 

Missouri’s Chapter 436 problems will not be fixed by going to a 100% trusting requirement. Oversight should be the state legislature’s top priority, and Missouri preneed sellers need to begin providing ideas and answers.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 While the completion of the document may have felt like a birthing process to the staff of Missouri's Division of Professional Registration, the Chapter 436 Working Group Recommendations more accurately reflects an industry position paper that has yet to be completed.   Faced with a deadline imposed by the Missouri legislature, the Division 'finalized' the Recommendations in an 11th hour meeting of the State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors.  The State Board meeting underscored that many industry members have yet to grasp how the preneed transaction is structured and administered by competitors.  This is best demonstrated by the State Board vote to revise the Recommendations to include the following:

 

·         The board recommended a 100% trusting requirement with no administrative or trustee expenses by a vote of 4-2.

 

 During various meetings, the issues of preneed sales expenses and trustee administration expenses having been erroneously interchanged by Committee members.  This confusion is due in part from Chapter 436 allowing all income to be distributed currently.  If the trust does not accrue income, the law requires the seller to assume responsibility for trust expenses.  Trustees normally look to trust income for administrative expenses.  If the trust has no income, the trustee is dependent upon the seller for reimbursement.  This aspect  compromises the fiduciary's duty to the trust. By its action, the State Board would perpetuate a major flaw in Chapter 436 (if trust funding is to survive at all). 

The State Board's objective is to protect the consumer, and to do so it must think comprehensively about the three forms of funding: insurance, joint accounts and trusts.   Is the consumer better served if trust funding is effectively precluded?   Of course not. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In response to a proposal that preneed trustees be required to provide periodic account statements to contract purchasers, a funeral director asked what liability he would have to consumers who question the trust’s performance during a year such as 2008.   Legally speaking: none. But ultimately, death care companies should be accountable to their families for the decisions they make with regard to preneed funds, including where those funds are placed and how well they are invested. With regard to certain contracts, NPS providers may not be responsible for the promised funeral, but consumers will punish the funeral home that turns its back on those contracts. The funeral home put the consumer at risk by agreeing to do business with NPS. Similarly, if a funeral home fails to devote the time and resources required for proper management of its preneed trust, consumers should ask if they are assuming too great a risk that the facility will be in business when the funeral is needed. 

Realistically, periodic trust statements to individual purchasers provide a ‘tickler’ that alone will not flag a troubled preneed program. A systematic trust reporting system is needed. Such a trust reporting system must also afford the public sufficient information to assess the financial strength of the preneed program. Yes, there will be a cost to both consumer and the funeral home, but a trust reporting system will reward the funeral home that devotes the energy and resources required to properly administer their families’ preneed funds.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Before the guaranteed preneed contract, funeral directors accepted pre-payment on funeral arrangements as an accommodation to their families. Funds were typically placed in a joint account or POD account at the local bank. As this practice became more common, “preneed’ laws were passed to establish requirements regarding the deposit and withdraw of funds. These laws were fairly simple, and some can still be found in many states’ preneed laws as a separate section within the more complex provisions intended for the guaranteed contract.

The guaranteed funeral contract was created about 50 years ago, and preneed took on a predatory characteristic. Promoted primarily by third party preneed programs, the guaranteed funeral contract became a tool for the funeral home that sought to compete with the more established funeral home across town. To overcome the ‘heritage’ established over years of service to a community, a funeral home offered the guaranteed contract to families to reduce expense and emotional distress. 

The third party preneed programs introduced concepts that early preneed laws did not contemplate: master trusts, diversified investments, commissions and grantor tax treatment. Over time, preneed was defined by the guaranteed contract, and the transaction proved very divisive for the funeral industry. A majority of funeral directors felt preneed was harmful to the profession and sought to deter the transaction. Realizing that this form of preneed was dependent upon salesmen, the trusting requirement became a pivotal issue. (Investment restrictions became another.)

With regard to trusting, preneed sellers took the position that the transaction represented a sale of goods and services and the trusting requirement should be set to cover the costs of providing the contracted goods and services. Many funeral directors countered that preneed was an accommodation and that joint account/POD funding requirements should apply to master trusts as well. Funeral directors adverse to preneed understood that if all consumer payments had to be trusted, preneed sellers would be deprived the revenue needed to compensate salesmen. Legislative battles were waged from state to state during the 1970s and 1980s (at a time when insurance funding did not play a major factor). The result was a mixed bag of state laws that vary greatly as to preneed trusting requirements. 

Generally, the 100% trusting issue surfaces in states such as Missouri, Nevada and Texas when consumer advocates pushed reform by seeking increased trusting requirements. However, the issue took on a different light recently when legislation was introduced in Tennessee to reduce its trusting requirement from 100% to 90%. While the bill eventually failed, the Tennessee Funeral Directors Association has good reason for pursuing the change even in light of the NPS failure.

NPS’ climb to become the nation’s largest third party preneed seller was fueled to a great extent by Missouri preneed sales. Missouri’s law allowed NPS to keep the first 20% of the consumer’s payments, and to withdraw income earned by the trust. Consequently, the NPS failure will lead to a call for Missouri to raise its trusting to 100%. Consumer advocates are recommending that Missouri legislators use New York’s preneed law as a guideline. New York not only requires 100% trusting, it also prohibits insurance funded preneed. While these restrictions have worked to the benefit of New York’s consumers and funeral directors, it is too late to implement such restrictions in Missouri (and the other states affected by NPS).

The New York Funeral Directors Association has an excellent record with consumers, and provides innovative programs to both consumers and funeral directors.   The Association’s preneed master trust provides crucial funding for those programs and services. While the state’s size would be sufficient to guarantee a large master trust, the Association also benefits from a legal environment that precludes competition from insurance companies and most outside third party sellers. (It should also be noted that the NYFDA master trust, like so many other state association master trusts, is also a third party preneed seller.) 

Through services provided to its master trust, the NYFDA generates revenues that underwrite educational materials, contracts, marketing, legal expenses and individual account administration. As the primary obligor of its preneed contracts, the association is also in a position of authority to its funeral homes.   The freedom from meaningful competition has allowed the NYFDA to make the consumer and compliance its top priorities. Funeral homes that do not agree with the Association’s policies have few preneed alternatives. In a sense, restraint of trade has worked well for the New York consumer. 

While preneed will always have its detractors, a majority of funeral directors now understand that preneed is more than an accommodation. However, the expense of establishing a preneed program is too great for many funeral homes. Consequently, the state master trust provides the necessary economies of scale to make preneed affordable for the smallest establishments. But, establishing a New York style preneed program requires commitment, time and resources. Without a substantive trust to fund program features, state master trusts must look to current sales for revenues to underwrite education, contracts, compliance, administration, and taxes. But as the Tennessee Funeral Directors Association found out a few weeks ago, it is very difficult to overcome the point of view that preneed is an accommodation and that 100% trusting constitutes a ‘good’ preneed law.

Beyond the 100% trusting requirement, the NYFDA is the only association that does not also have to contend with insurance company competitors. Even though insurance provides the consumer an important alternative to trust funded contracts, this competition impacts an association’s ability to effect policies that may be unpopular with some funeral directors.   If the cost of participation in the master trust must be borne in part by the member funeral homes, some mechanism must be afforded the funeral home to recover those costs when the contract is canceled or transferred to a non-member funeral home. This may be a consideration in the pending Ohio legislation. 

It is unfair to compare the New York master trust to those in states such as Missouri and Iowa. Missouri’s state association had to compete with 3 preneed sellers and several insurance companies. As a consequence, the MFDEA cannot dictate issues to its members as the NYFDA can. Any attempt to implement New York styled restrictions in states such as Missouri will likely be challenged by insurance companies and proactive preneed funeral homes to the FTC as unreasonable restraints of trade. 

Clearly the 1980’s argument advanced by preneed sellers about trusting has been proven wrong by the NPS failure. It is not enough to simply trust that amount needed to cover the ‘cost’ of the prearranged funeral.   Rather, legislators must find a way to protect consumers’ interests while providing the death care industry the means to pay the costs of a preneed program that provides education, performance, compliance and safety.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On June 11^th, Senator Delbert Scott met with a number of death care industry members and regulators to begin mapping out the direction for preneed reform in Missouri.  From that meeting, it was decided that the state’s death care regulators would form review committees that would facilitate a dialog on the issues, and help formulate recommendations for the Missouri Legislature’s Joint Committee on Preneed Funeral Contracts. The Joint Committee is expected to begin hearings in September.  

The State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors has formed its Chapter 436 Review Committee, with the first meeting scheduled for July 8th. The Office of Endowed Care will defer formation of its review committee until later in July. The Chapter 214 Review Committee will not meet until August, after the Chapter 436 review committee meetings are concluded. 

To provide some structure for the Chapter 436 meetings, the State Board is circulating a survey on 67 issues. The review committee meetings will have to maintain tight schedules in order to adequately address those issues. The review committee meetings will provide public attendees an opportunity to provide comments. 

It will be crucial that consumers, funeral directors, cemeterians, fiduciaries and vendors contribute to the discussions that will take place at these meetings. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As news of the NPS meltdown began to leak last month, several proposals to reform Missouri's preneed law were hastily drafted.  Not knowing the extent of NPS' problems, some reform advocates felt the need to strike while the iron was hot. 

Even as the legislative session ended on May 16th, it was not clear whether any reform would be enacted.  However, when the dust settled in Jefferson City, the only preneed reform enacted will prove the most prudent.

By virtue of an amendment made to Senate Bill 788 on the Senate Floor, the "Joint Committee on Preneed Funeral Contracts" was given birth.  The committee will be formed with seven members from each of the House and the Senate. 

The Joint Committee's tasks are to:

(1) Make a comprehensive study and analysis of the consumer and economic impact on the preneed funeral contract industry in the state of Missouri;

(2) Determine from its study and analysis the need for changes in statutory law; and

(3) Make any other recommendation to the general assembly relating to its findings.

By the time the Committee members are appointed, and hearings are scheduled in September, a great deal more will be known about NPS' business practices.  However, the hearings are bound to put Missouri's entire preneed industry under the microscope.  The death care industry has the summer to prepare.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Missouri preneed industry faces a long and stormy summer. 

The Missouri legislature seems to be listening to regulators' requests for much needed authorities for examinations, audits and rulemaking.  A draft bill providing emergency powers to the Division of Professional Registration has emerged as legislation that may be signed into law before the current session ends next week.  In contrast to most bills enacted into law, this one is rumored to have an immediate effective date.

If the bill is signed into law, the Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors will begin to study methods for implementing the preneed inspection powers to determine whether the state's preneed problems extend beyond the NPS failure.  Though meant to demonstrate the industry's overall compliance with Chapter 436, recent testimony at legislative hearings may have undermined regulators' confidence in the industry's past efforts to comply with current law.

One approach the State Board will consider is a comprehensive desk top examination of each seller's fundamental compliance with Chapter 436.   Approximately 12 years ago, the State Board contemplated a broad based review process that  would have sought basic information about the three methods of funding: trust, insurance and joint accounts.   However, the initiative could not be pursued because the State Board lacked the authority to require compliance by licensees. 

I could not attend recent  a hearing where industry members testified before legislators to provide assurances that most funeral directors do comply with Chapter 436.  If the description provided to me about the testimony of one well intended funeral director was accurate,  funeral homes need to take a refresher on the requirements of Chapter 436.  I have heard similar misstatements by funeral directors at recent State Board meetings.

I anticipate that The Missouri Funeral Directors and Embalmers Association is already working on Chapter 436 compliance courses to provide its members.  Association members would be well advised to take such a course before assuming their funeral home is in compliance.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

With two reform bills (HB 2469 and HB 2594) already introduced into the legislature, and two substitute proposals in the works, Missouri legislators and regulators are committed to fixing a law that allowed NPS to exploit consumers and funeral homes. However, consumers and the death care industry are both having difficulty analyzing the specifics of the various proposals. The haste with which legislation is being pressed suggests that regulators know more about the gravity of the NPS situation than what has been disclosed to the public.

Chapter 436 has some obvious problems:

• The combination of a low trusting percentage (the last 80% of payments) and the right to withdraw income currently

• Restrictions on the state board to order inspections or audits

• Minimal reporting requirements

• Ambiguity regarding deposit requirements

• Ambiguity regarding insurance funded preneed

• A lack of rulemaking authority

• An underlying assumption that all preneed contracts will be price guaranteed, and most would be trust funded

• Inadequate provisions for consumer protections when sellers or providers go out of business or are sold

• A general lack of independent oversight

What may not be apparent to legislators, and to consumers, are the many competing economic interests that exist under the “death care” umbrella. There is little doubt that legislators are getting a crash course on those interests. The various proposals already reflect certain interests of regulators, funeral homes and preneed sellers. But if legislators are only now learning the issues, how will they know which proposals are in the best interests of the consumer?

If it were not for the NPS meltdown, Chapter 436 would not be a topic of discussion in Jefferson City. Last year, Representative Meadows proposed a reform bill that was blocked before it could even be discussed. The year before, the State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors put preneed reform on its agenda, but the chairman, Ken McGhee, received very little support, or interest.  The sudden interest to fix Chapter 436 is being driven by the NPS failure.

Preneed is a complex issue, and Chapter 436 has more faults than most states’ preneed laws. But, the NPS situation cannot be fixed if we do not know the extent of the damage. It is too late to close this barn door. Rather, the legislature must bring structure to a situation that has many competing interests. The NPS meltdown is unprecedented, and a public forum is needed so that all can understand what went wrong, and where should we go from here. 

With regard to drafting preneed reform, the Missouri death care industry has historically relied upon representatives from the State Board, the funeral directors association, the cemetery association, preneed sellers and the consolidators to forge a consensus bill to submit to the legislature. This group has been referred to as the Allied Council. It has been 13 years since the Allied Council forwarded a Chapter 436 proposal to legislators. Ironically, that Allied Council effort was subverted by NPS. 

Chapter 436 will be revised. However it should be done with the input of an Allied Council that includes consumers, insurance companies and the attorney general’s office. 

• Email This
• 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. 

• Email This
• 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.

 

• 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

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. 

• 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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