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

Yesterday, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran an article that examined the history of NPS, and raised some of the questions that need to be explored in depth in the months to come.   The system failed in several states, for both consumers and funeral homes.   While most funeral homes will try to make good on the NPS promises to consumers, regulators must share in the responsibilities for what went wrong and what has to be done.

NPS was an innovative company that grew frustrated with the fragmented nature of state preneed laws, and exploited the gaps and ambiguities of state regulation.   Some will say that NPS exploited the greed of funeral directors, and this should be sufficient reason for holding funeral homes responsible for performance of the NPS contracts. While this will ring true for some funeral directors, this is too simplistic an explanation of the situation.   The reality is that many funeral homes will fail if regulators do not recover sufficient assets from the Cassitys. 

• 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.

• 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. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A Wisconsin bill that would establish a right of sepulcher looks bound for passage (AB 305).   There are several things to like about this bill.  It would establish an individual's right to control the disposition of his or her body, and to designate an agent authorized to carry out that directive.  The bill also provides the hierarchy of kin who may control the disposition in the absence of a directive from the deceased.  In the event of a dispute between kin, the bill requires all concerned to be prepared to assume the financial responsibility for the disposition (avoiding the potential for a disgruntled family member from acting as a 'spoiler'). 

The bill also defines those individuals who may not serve as an designated agent for disposition.  Funeral directors and cemeterians are precluded, as are hospice workers and clergy.   I am puzzled by the exclusion of clergy and hospice workers from those who may be designated (unless related by blood.  I have prepared estate planning documents that included a minister as the individual's fall back choice for implementing his disposition directives.  I could also see where individuals have established relationships with hospice workers and would trust them to carry out plans for disposition.  

Perhaps the Wisconsin legislature was concerned about individuals who might have an undue influence on the terminally ill, but I do not understand the need to restrict an individual's rights with regard to either clergy or hospice workers.  I would welcome comments regarding these limitations. 

But in any event, the bill will benefit Wisconsin citizens by providing the right to control one's own disposition.    If the bill is signed into law, funeral homes and crematories should evaluate their forms with regard to this bill and the Crematory Authority Act passed in 2005.  Preneed contracts that contemplate cremation may want to include an authorization form that addresses both laws.   

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks