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

As discussed in prior posts, the Missouri preneed audit process begins with a notice to the preneed seller for the production of documents and data. After a review is made of the documents, data and the annual reports filed with the State Board, an on-site examination is scheduled with the seller. Most Missouri preneed sellers are unsure of what to expect. To an extent, Missouri has borrowed from the Texas Department of Banking examination manual in developing preneed audit procedures. However, Texas has the benefit of years of reporting and exams. Missouri is playing catch up, and the desk audit of the seller’s documents, data and annual reports are the State Board’s first in depth look at how funeral homes have structured their preneed programs.

SB1 made substantial changes to Missouri’s trusting requirements, and one purpose for the desk audit is to determine if the seller’s preneed contract form and trust agreement are compliant. But, the desk audit will also be used to match trustee reports to outstanding contracts, and determine whether the proper funding has been maintained.

For the State Board examiners, the first look at a seller’s records includes all outstanding preneed contracts. Missouri’s first preneed law was written in 1965, and some funeral homes have contracts dating back that far. Consequently, the initial desk audit could be a lengthy process for Missouri’s larger funeral operators.
. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The examination of a Missouri preneed seller begins with a request that certain documents be submitted to the State Board within 3 weeks. The purpose for the document production is to allow the examiner to perform a desk audit of the seller’s operable documents before an on-site visit is made. From those documents the examiner will determine the funding methods used, the compliance of the preneed contract form (and other documents) with Chapter 436, possible funding deficiencies, and possible administration issues.

An important distinction that Missouri funeral homes must make is that the request is aimed at its preneed business written as a seller. The document request does not include preneed written on a third party seller’s preneed contract such as Missouri Funeral Trust, American Prearranged Services, National Prearranged Services and Funeral Security Plans.

The Board's document requests are as follows:

• A current statement from your state or federally chartered financial institution/s authorized to exercise trust powers in Missouri of any preneed trust account/s that you have identifying the payments, earnings, and distributions for each active preneed contract.

If the seller has trust funded preneed, the State Board is requesting a statement from the trustee that sets out aggregate payments, earnings and distributions for each active (outstanding) preneed contract. This requirement will prove problematic for most preneed sellers, particularly for their trusts established under the prior law. While many preneed trusts report income for purposes of Internal Revenue Section 685, they do not maintain records of the aggregate income and expense per consumer account. It is also unlikely the income distributions have been tracked by account.

With this request, the State Board is also putting the seller on notice that the trustee must be authorized to exercise trust powers within Missouri. Foreign chartered institutions have special requirements to satisfy this requirement.

• A current statement from any/all applicable insurance companies with which you have insurance- funded preneed contracts for each active preneed contract.

This seems fairly self explanatory. But, the funeral home needs to distinguish insurance assigned for a spend down for that insurance written concurrently with a prearrangement. Some insurance companies have taken an aggressive position on what constitutes a spend down, and the examiners will have the right to review both types of transactions.

• A current statement from your financial institution/s of preneed joint account/s for each active preneed contract.

If the funeral home used joint accounts, the State Board wants a copy of the current bank statements for the certificates of deposits and depository accounts. If funeral home receives individual statements, this production could require some work. Some banks provide a composite statement (that shows all the CDs). The funeral home may need to cross reference the account numbers to specific contracts.

• A copy of a ledger or computerized report showing all outstanding preneed contracts.

The State Board is looking for a comprehensive list of all outstanding preneed contracts. The current annual report only reflects those contracts sold during the last reporting period. It would probably be sufficient if the outstanding contracts were reported by funding (one report for trusts, one for insurance and one for joint accounts).

• Copies of agreements(s) with providers, agents, funeral director agents and if any contracts are funded by trust a copy of the trust agreement with the trustee.

The State Board is looking for all relevant agreements to the preneed seller program. SB1 was passed in response to National Prearranged Services, and its practice of representing a funeral home without an agreement. While SB1 does not require an agreement between a funeral home and funeral director agent, not all funeral director agents are employees of a funeral home. If a funeral home allows an independent agent to sell preneed on its behalf, an agreement exists. If that agreement has not been put in writing, and the agent violates Chapter 436, a swearing contest will ensue.

If the seller uses trust funding, the State Board is looking for the trust agreement and all contracts or agreements related to the administration of the trust. Many of the preneed programs offered to Missouri funeral homes involved the outsourcing of administration, and the examiners will need to know where to direct questions that may stem from that administration.

• A copy of the trust agreement with the financial institutions for any preneed trust.

Yes, this is a redundant request, and no, the seller doesn’t have to provide the trust agreement twice.

• A blank preneed contract currently used by you as a seller.

The examination will eventually review old contracts (and their compliance with the prior law), but the Board is concerned primarily with the current contract form’s compliance with SB1.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Preneed scandals in Illinois, Missouri, Texas, and California have state regulators moving to implement new audit procedures. But with new laws passed in the wake of NPS and state master trust problems, the frequency and scope of the future audit could change dramatically.  It is no secret that the scope of the preneed audit in Missouri is work in progress. When asked how the audit was being revised for its licensees, Illinois regulators politely declined to provide their written guidelines. Regulators in Kansas and Nebraska are also evaluating their audit procedures. But, the legal battle being waged in California provides a glimpse of one regulator’s intent to change the scope of the preneed audit.

The Ninth and Tenth Causes of Actions from the California Attorney General’s lawsuit against the California Master Trust allege that defendants either failed to maintain, or to produce, the preneed records required by law and regulation. California Code of Regulations, title 16, Section 1267 sets out those records that must be maintained by the funeral home. The regulation dates back 30 years, and reflects a view of the preneed transaction that is no longer consistent with the view taken by the Attorney General, and with the direction of the audit and lawsuit.

In a nutshell, the regulation asks for records which are intended to confirm whether the preneed payments were deposited to trust. The underlying principal is that the preneed contract represents a sale that the funeral home will book to its GAAP financial records. The regulation defines the funeral home’s cash receipts journal and general ledger as preneed records. The requirements contemplate that the funeral home will book these sales and payments for compliance with income tax reporting. By requiring the financial books and records, the preneed auditor can then track a consumer payment from funeral home receipt to the preneed trust. While the funeral director might not fear the preneed regulator, he is not likely to hide the income from Uncle Sam.

However, the California litigation is not about money that didn’t make it to trust, it is about the administration of the trust assets. In attempting to investigate the administration of the trust, the preneed auditor went beyond what the regulation calls for. The best evidence of the expanding scope of the audit is the defendants' response letter to the Cemetery and Funeral Bureau audit findings. The response letter indicates that one funeral home was cited for failing to have the following records:

• All correspondence with the trust administrator
• Copies of contracts that provide services to the trust
• Records of administrative costs
• Records of administrative costs allocated among the trustee and its vendors
• The portfolio of trust investments

When questioned about its authority for the requests, the Bureau reply stated that the trustee failed to make available “complete financial records for all preneed contracts and arrangements”. This answer fails to clarify what trust and financial records the funeral home must maintain on its premises.

What seems to come through from the California litigation is that original approach to the audit, ensuring the funds made it to trust, and leaving trust oversight to the independent CPA and an opinion, failed the California consumer. But, could the Bureau have better protected the consumer if the financial records have been kept at the individual funeral homes? (No, not without additional guidelines on the management of master trusts and pooled accounts.) And even if such regulations existed, it would be expecting too much from the auditor whose duties entail visits to hundreds of the funeral homes.

While the field auditor is an important element of the preneed compliance program, the program has to include the administration of preneed trust. Does this mean the funeral director must maintain correspondence and records related to the trust’s administration? The best course of action would be to establish a file for all trust related documents and correspondence. With the increase of preneed portability and the sale of non-guaranteed contracts, the funeral director's reliance on the ‘guaranteed contract defense’ becomes more tenuous. In a limited sense, the funeral director is becoming a fund manager on behalf of the consumer.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As reported previously in the blog, the State of Nebraska began to implement a preneed contract database in 2010 when master trusts were requested to provide individual contract data in an electronic format. The request was expanded to all preneed sellers in 2011.

Kansas Secretary of State sought legislation in 2010 for the authority to seek individual preneed data from its cemeteries selling preneed. While the KSOS initial effort fell short, a second effort passed the legislature a few weeks ago. Under this new bill, cemeteries will be required to trust preneed sales at 50% of the sales price and to report those sales (together with deposits and distributions) on a quarterly basis.

Illinois has now joined the preneed database club with an amendment made to SB0675. The bill will require preneed contracts to be entered into a database maintained by the Comptroller within 45days of the contract date.

As opposed to the paper report of individual contracts, the preneed database provides the regulator more flexibility in reviewing information and creating contract listings from which to begin audits and examinations at the funeral home or cemetery.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A breakdown in communications between the CFDA and the Cemetery and Funeral Bureau has resulted in the California Attorney General filing a lawsuit that can be appropriately described as vitriolic. The “California lawsuit” could provide some valuable ‘what to avoid” lessons for regulators in other states.

In an unusual move, the Bureau went “public” last year by raising a number of issues with administration of the California Master Trust. Some of those issues did warrant an explanation. One issue involves the actions taken by the CFDA subsidiary in response to the 2000 market crash. The subsidiary implemented a plan to stabilize the master trust value after the collapse of a bond fund. Another issue regards the administration fees charged the master trust subsequent to the collapse of the bond fund. A third issue regards the subsidiary’s policy to pay a portion of the administration fees to participating funeral homes.

The CFDA countered with arguments of how its actions were within California law. Those arguments have merit, and were covered by this blog in July 2010. (See California Master Trust: serious missteps, but not another IFDA.) The CFDA proposed that the issues be reviewed in the context of relevant facts, having the Bureau apply thirty year old laws and regulations to the CMT’s circumstances. Instead, the California Attorney General adopted a “quick kill” strategy that employs a two prong attack: involve the consumer and apply the law strictly.

In taking the controversy to the consumer, the California AG has been disingenuous when using such terms as “conspiracy”, “concocted”, and “kickbacks”. In doing so, the AG may end up galvanizing the CMT membership, and getting anything but a quick kill.

The AG’s legal arguments are also somewhat disingenuous. As the title suggests, this blog entry will focus on the AG’s call for a truly independent trustee. In future entries, we will look at some of the AG’s other legal arguments.

In the “First Cause of Action” of the petition, the AG makes the argument for how the CFDA’s administrative subsidiary has assumed unlawful control over the preneed funeral trust. Granted, the CFDA may have gone too far in assuming control over the trustee’s appointment of agents (and discounted the interests of consumers with non-guaranteed contracts), but the AG ignores the fact the master trust consists of thousands of preneed contracts that originates in hundreds of funeral homes. This fact makes the fiduciary dependent upon the funeral home in a number of ways.

The trustee needs preneed contract data for accounting (much in the same way the regulator’s auditor is dependent on the same records to perform his job). As with other states’ master trusts, the association performed a vital role in providing crucial contract administration. Contrary to the AG’s citation to the California probate code, these are administrative functions the corporate fiduciary must delegate. The trustee cannot account for the preneed contract as a depository account.

The trustee also needs input when setting investment policies. The AG would suggest that the preneed trustee cannot look to the funeral home. This ignores that the vast majority of the preneed contracts are guaranteed, where the funeral home has assumed the risk of investment. It also flies in the face of the numerous “No Action Letters” issued by the Securities Exchange Commission.

The manner in which the trustee prepares trust tax returns impacts both the funeral home and consumer. The most efficient approach (Federal Form 1041QFT) has a cost to the funeral home. Consequently, the preneed fiduciary will want the funeral home’s approval.

The ‘independent preneed trustee’ may seem to be a quick and easy answer to regulators, but only if the courts ignore the facts and realities of administering a preneed trust.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A few years ago, a past president of the NFDA wrote in The Director that funeral directors should begin blowing the whistle on industry cheaters. This blog raised a concern over whether funeral directors understood applicable preneed laws well enough to become whistleblowers. A recent news article in the Morris Daily Herald contains facts to suggest an industry member decided to become a whistleblower. The results may have gone further than what the whistleblower expected.

The story comes out of Wilmington, Illinois, where preneed regulation is in a period of transition. At the center of the Illinois storm is the IFDA, Merrill Lynch and the Illinois Comptroller’s Office. From statements provided by a Comptroller spokesman, readers can connect the dots to conclude the funeral home under investigation had participated in the IFDA, and may have failed to deposit to trust the funds received on 8 preneed contracts. With the turmoil surrounding the IFDA, many funeral homes were reluctant to continue making trust deposits.

The Comptroller statements also reference a Freedom of Information request and a complaint. The chances are that someone with connections to a funeral home competitor made the FOI request, and filed a complaint. The Comptroller’s office responded with an examination, but then quickly referred the matter to the State Attorney’s office.

With SB1682 being less than a year old, many Illinois funeral directors remain confused about the law’s requirements. If the Wilmington situation proves to involve a funeral home that erroneously made deposits to a custodial arrangement, the new Comptroller may be sending a stern warning to Illinois funeral directors: get right with the law or face the prospect of criminal proceedings. It seems drastic, but it is also consistent with a trend where regulators are turning to local prosecutors. This is also the response of a newly elected Comptroller who may like nothing better than to have preneed oversight transferred to someone else, even if its piecemeal to a State Attorney’s office.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

According to Wikipedia,

Regulation is "controlling human or societal behavior by rules or restrictions." Regulation can take many forms including legal restrictions promulgated by a government authority…….

So, regulators are charged with the task of interpreting “legal restrictions” and determining what businesses can or cannot do. When the applicable law is well drafted, and further defined by regulations, a business has the means to research compliance and develop appropriate practices and procedures. A business may only need to seek regulatory approval when implementing a novel practice. In the context of Securities regulation or ERISA, procedures exist for businesses to seek written guidance before implementing a new practice. But, as California funeral directors have found out, that is not the case with preneed regulation.

The dispute between the California Funeral Directors Association and the DCA’s Cemetery and Funeral Bureau was widely reported when allegations of mismanagement and lost funds were made. In typical fashion, the Bureau set out its findings regarding the Master Trust. The Association’s administrative subsidiary (the “FDSC”) responded. The Bureau was not satisfied, and a war of written responses ensued. Frustrated with the Bureau, the FDSC has now filed for an injunction. (For a detailed explanation of the situation, click here for a recent Memorial Business Journal article.*)

The FDSC would seem to be asking the Bureau to step out of the traditional regulator’s box, and discuss some practical approaches to the issues. We’ve heard your positions and criticism, but tell us how to reconcile these dated, and somewhat disjunctive, code sections, and apply that to today’s facts and circumstances.

History has a way of repeating itself. In 1988, after years of audits, the IRS decided to force a universal method of income reporting on preneed trusts by issuing Rev. Rul. 87-127. Other than terminating reporting methods that it found objectionable, the Service hadn’t given much thought to whether the industry could comply with the new reporting requirements. Nor did the Service think to provide compliance procedures. For more than eight years, the industry struggled to find a way to comply with the grantor reporting requirements. (Some funeral directors are still struggling today.)

If effective preneed reform is the goal, death care regulators need to do more than inform operators what they cannot do. These laws tend to be ambiguous, and regulators need to participate in the process of finding workable solutions.

*Reprinted with permission from the November 18, 2010 issue of the Memorial Business Journal. To subscribe please call 609-815-8145.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Missouri is one of the few states that does not impose a continuing education requirement for funeral directors. Where continuing education is required, the state funeral director association typically sponsors programs that satisfy the CE requirements, and provides revenues needed to supplement the association’s budget needs.

The passage of SB1 has provided the Missouri Funeral Directors and Embalmers Association with an opportunity to reach out to members (and non-members) with classes about the new law’s requirements. However, the MFDEA faces challenges in reaching the Missouri industry: attendance is not mandatory, the economy is down, funeral directors are taking a wait and see approach, and the interpretation of the law’s requirements by the Board/staff is muddled.

Since the law’s passage in August 2009, Board members and staff have expressed frustration with the industry. Funeral directors did not attend legislative hearings or Board meetings in the numbers that were anticipated. Response to the new licensing requirements has been slow, and accompanied by complaints.

The past two years have been demanding and time consuming for the Board and its staff. Those two years have been marked by trial and err processes, some of which have succeeded and some of which have been jettisoned. For an industry that rarely attends a Board meeting, the result has been confusing.

The proposed examination procedures discussed at the State Board’s October 27th meeting include controversial provisions that will likely change before the Board’s meetings in December. Reviewing every outstanding preneed contract of every seller would be time consuming and excessive. Under certain circumstances, such a procedure may be warranted. If a seller cannot provide indicia of what his outstanding preneed liability is, then the Board has no recourse but to look for every contract.

However, there will be an on site examination of every seller. And, there will be a review of at least a sampling of the seller’s contracts. The exam will also involve a review of the performed contracts. At the conclusion of the review, the examiner will conduct an exit interview to advise the seller of the findings. These minimum procedures will provide the Board and the staff an opportunity to educate each seller regarding issues on non-compliance. But, the next steps of the examination process will provide sellers an opportunity to educate the Board and its staff.

The examination procedures represent the best efforts of the staff, with input from the Board and other states’ preneed regulators. Preneed is not only unique from state to state, but often from seller to seller. And, there are Missouri funeral homes that will argue the current Board membership is not a fair representation of preneed sellers.

So, after the exit interview is conducted, the examiner will return to the Board offices to prepare a report. That report will be sent to the seller to so that it may provide comments, rebuttal and proposed corrections. Then the examiner and staff will have to opportunity to revise the report that is filed with the State Board. Then the Board will decide what actions should be taken. If the Board/staff and the seller are in disagreement, a hearing will follow.

The rebuttal report and Board hearing will provide sellers the crucial opportunity to educate the staff and the Board about practices and procedures that were not adequately addressed in the Chapter 436 hearings, or subsequent Board meetings. Pressures to pass a law, and then implement that law, have resulted in the Board (and staff) pushing aside issues. One on one with the Board, sellers will have the opportunity to slow the process down and address SB1 and how it’s being interpreted and applied. For staff that has only dealt with problem programs, or Board members familiar with their approach to preneed, the rebuttal report and hearing will continue Missouri’s preneed educational process.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors has released its proposed preneed examination procedures. The release comes just 24 hours before the Board’s October 27th meeting, and so few funeral directors will be prepared to ask questions.

The proposal contemplates different procedures for ‘compliant sellers’ and ‘non-compliant sellers’. With most of the industry concerned about some issue of compliance, the proposal begs the question how the determination of non-compliance is made. The timing of the release and the October 31st renewal deadline suggest that the failure to timely file a properly prepared seller’s renewal may be the easiest way to fall into the non-compliant stack.

The October 27th meeting only allows an hour of discussion of the proposal, so the industry will have to anticipate the time for questions and discussion will occur at the Board’s December meetings.
 

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

California funeral directors face a September 13th deadline that could have substantial financial consequences, including the repayment of trust distributions.

A July 1st letter sent by the California’s Cemetery & Funeral Bureau to funeral homes in the California Master Trust outlined the regulator’s rejection of the Association responses regarding the Master Trust audit. An impatient Bureau gave funeral directors 3 weeks to respond. That deadline was quickly extended to August 11th. Then the week before the August 11th deadline, the Bureau granted another extension to September 13th.  On the eve of the deadline, there is nothing on the Bureau's website to suggest another extension is in the offering.

The Bureau is demanding several significant changes to be made to the administration of the California Master Trust. But one demand that may prove problematic for the Association will be the Bureau’s demand that funeral homes repay to consumers’ trusts the administration fees that have been paid out over the years. The Bureau has rejected the Association’s proposal for prospective procedures to document the fees.

Within the past year, Nebraska preneed sellers were also called upon to replenish trusts for the method in which income taxes were paid. The Nebraska examinations also went back several years, and involved substantial amounts.

With new reporting requirements, Missouri funeral homes will also have to explain trust and joint account shortages. Some Missouri funeral directors have failed to appreciate how Missouri law distinguishes between trusting and joint accounts. Missouri’s old preneed law allowed sellers who used trusts to retain 20% of the consumer’s payments, and to withdraw income (subject to the mark to market) requirement. Those provisions don’t apply to joint accounts. With regard to the new Missouri law, sellers also need to grasp that the 10% sales expense is permitted only with regard to trust contracts that are guaranteed. With regard to Pre-SB1 trusts, sellers could be held accountable for income, taxes and expense distributions that cause the trust to drop below aggregate deposits.

Illinois preneed sellers have a similar limitation on their claim to the 5/15% permitted under their preneed law. While the lawsuits that have embroiled the IFDA claim about 1/3 of the master trust’s contracts were non-guaranteed, it’s not clear the funeral homes made that distinction when claiming their ‘administrative fee’.

For those funeral directors who participate in a master trust, the California drama is worth watching. While the Association is crucial to negotiating a resolution, the Bureau has taken its fight to the individual funeral homes. Will other state’s regulators follow suit?
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Missouri Funeral Director and Embalmer Association provided crucial support to the passage of Senate Bill No. 1, but the heart of the association’s membership, the mom and pop operators, may now be second-guessing that decision.

SB1 provides regulators the authority to audit or examine preneed trusts and joint accounts, including those established prior to August 28, 2009. Missouri funeral directors are now hearing that the State Board will enforce provisions of the law against their old preneed business in such a way so to put their funeral establishment licenses at risk.

The State Board’s authority to audit preneed sellers under the old law was vague. During the 1980s and early 1990s, the State Board conducted ‘random’ audits. In reality, the audits were not random, but weighted by the number of contracts sold. Using independent CPA firms, audits were made of the same small group of sellers. The practice was challenged in the mid-1990s, and audits were discontinued.

While the vast majority of Missouri sellers have never been audited, their preneed contracts have been reviewed periodically by State Board inspectors. Funeral directors are now troubled by the prospect of those contracts failing to pass muster when reviewed by an independent CPA firm.

The licensees’ worries are well founded. Few funeral homes engaged legal counsel for the purpose of preparing preneed contracts or trust agreements. Instead, funeral homes shared or borrowed documents, often without regard to such specifics as how the contract was to be funded. Consequently, funeral homes have used trust-funded contracts for joint accounts.

Some funeral directors are bound to take a defiant position with the State Board’s enforcement of SB1 against their preneed paperwork. While it is predictable that the State Board may assert the licensee’s failure to engage legal counsel is no defense, licensees represented by counsel also have reason to be indignant with the Board.
 

• 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