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

Many state preneed regulators share the point of view that the payments made toward a preneed contract belong to the consumer until the prearranged funeral is provided. This perspective was adopted by the California Attorney General in its Eighth Cause of Action brought against the California Funeral Directors Association and its Master Trust. The AG criticizes the CFDA for investment decisions that are fairly representative of those taken by the industry as a whole.

Early on, the CMT relied upon bond funds that specialized in zero coupon government bonds. The AG points out that U.S. Treasury Bonds and similar bond funds outperformed the CMT at less risk and with lower fees.

When the bond market crashed in 2001, the CMT experienced substantial investment losses and changed investment course. The CMT began diversifying, and purchasing mortgaged back securities, foreign bonds and notes, corporate asset-backed securities and other types of securities. The AG criticizes these investments by stating “these types of investments are not insured bank accounts, are not bonds that are legal investments for commercial bank (sections 1001 et seq. of the Financial Code lists certain legal investments for commercial banks), are not government bonds, and do not comply with the Uniform Prudent Investor Act (as discussed below).”

The AG goes on to argue that the investment policies of the CMT should be set by the risk and return objectives of the preneed contract beneficiaries, and faults the defendants for having set investment policies based on their own needs.

Other states’ preneed regulators (and cemetery regulators) share the California AG’s point of view. It is common to hear a regulator characterize the preneed trust as a depository account or to express the belief the industry would be better off if preneed funding were left to the insurance companies. These regulators need to take the blinders off.

The CMT, like so many preneed trusts, went into tax exempt investments after 1988 because of Revenue Rul. 87-127. The Internal Revenue Service pushed for an income reporting method that proved impractical and burdensome. To compound the situation, the IRS applied the ruling retroactively to certain states. California was one of those states. Prior to the ruling, funeral homes had no reason to require the consumer’s social security number when selling a preneed contract. Consequently, many California trustees could not comply with the ruling with regard to existing contracts.

The ruling required grantor statements to be sent to consumers, and the consumers complained. So, funeral homes instructed their preneed fiduciaries to go into anything that didn’t require a grantor statement. While the CMT went to zero coupon bonds, the IFDA went into the poorly conceived key man insurance. Other trusts went into annuities. Various approaches were taken because the IRS could not provide reporting guidance once it changed the rules.

In stating that the preneed funds must be invested pursuant to the contract beneficiary’s objectives, the California AG has ignored the fact that a majority of these preneed contracts are probably guaranteed. Under that arrangement, the funeral home has assumed the investment risk. From a practical approach, how would the investment advisor determine the objectives of the thousands of preneed beneficiaries? In a prior post, this blog reported about an Illinois contract beneficiary’s complaint about the IFDA Master Trust. In contrast to the losses suffered by the member funeral homes, the beneficiary experienced a modest return on her non-guaranteed contract. Her complaint was that the return was not enough to keep up with rising funeral costs.

The California AG argument that the CMT must comply with the Prudent Investor Rule in a way that does not expose trust principal to risk is the equivalent to handcuffing both of the investment advisor’s hands behind his back.

Of the investment complaints made by the California AG, the one which would seem to merit the most attention would be the relationship between the former investment advisor and a CFDA board member. That CFDA board member also served as a trustee for one of the advisor’s funds, for which he received compensation. That relationship warrants an inquiry whether the relationship was disclosed and the compensation appropriate and reasonable.

The AG’s argument that the investment advisor must be independent from the seller is one shared by Missouri regulators. The Missouri regulators are quick to point to the abuses committed by NPS and its investment management firm. (See our post titled “The Zeal for Independence”). Those abuses were so bad that the Missouri legislature passed a provision prohibiting a relationship between the seller and the fund manager. This author thought the provision went too far. (See our post titled “Regulating Out of Context”). With the passage of SB 325, the Missouri Funeral Directors Association has convinced the Missouri legislature that it did go too far.

Regardless of whether the fund manager is a fiduciary employee or an independent investment advisor, that fund manager should appropriately look to the preneed seller for input about investment objectives. For the larger trust, the fiduciary and fund manager should adopt a written investment policy that, among other factors, considers the trust’s mix of guaranteed and non-guaranteed contracts. If the fund manager is an independent investment advisor, the relationship should be documented with an agreement that discloses all forms of compensation. Consistent with the SEC efforts to reform mutual funds, the disclosure should address any 12b-1 fees. The agreement with the fiduciary should also disclose all relationships the investment advisor has with the preneed seller.

To the extent the preneed contract is guaranteed, the regulator needs to recognize the seller’s economic interest in the trust’s performance. But, fiduciaries and sellers need to consider the growing number of non-guaranteed contracts and the possibility that the guaranteed contract may be serviced by a different funeral home. While the seller may have the prevailing economic interest, not all of the trust may be considered his for investment purposes.

• 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

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

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

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

In contrast to how the IFDA situation was handled, the California Department of Consumer Affairs has taken a public approach to disclosing its issues with the CFDA’s master trust by posting its website an audit report and the Association’s reply.

The DCA is unhappy with the Association, and the master trust fiduciary, with regard to (among other things) the fees that have been charged to the trust, the authorities that have been delegated by the fiduciary, and their refusals to respond to certain audit inquiries and document requests.

The audit report reflects a very literal interpretation of the applicable California laws. A close reading of the report should leave one scratching his/her head on a few of the issues (hint: corpus issues). But, auditors have no choice but to apply the laws that are applicable to the entity under examination, and unfortunately, the California preneed law and rules are dated and disjunctive.

For those who summarily advise that the audit report and the DCA actions reflect yet another example of a preneed program gone bad, that is not the case.

The DCA website includes the April 29th response from the law firm representing the Association. I doubt the attorneys knew that the letter would end up on the DCA website, but the reply is very illustrative of the issues that exist with a dated, and ambiguous, law. While the Association has made some serious missteps with regard to some of the law’s ambiguities, the auditor’s interpretations of the law and its requirements are inconsistent or unreasonable in some respects. Accordingly, the DCA would be well advised to accept the offer extended in the “Conclusions” on page 46 of the reply.

The crucial issues raised by this dispute are relevant to all master trusts, and will be addressed in future posts. Hopefully, the DCA will continue to make the discussions and eventual resolutions public so that death care regulators and preneed program administrators can take note.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks