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

While the reasons are open to debate, it is common knowledge within the funeral industry that a small percentage of consumers cancel their preneed contracts. Consequently, some funeral directors tend to view their preneed block of business with a degree of certainty. Performance of the contracts, and recognition of the revenues, seems to be just a matter of timing. A few state laws reflect the perception that performance of the preneed contract is a ‘lock’. For 37 years, Missouri law allowed preneed sellers to withdraw trust income. Nevada’s law has similar provisions. Preneed trust income became a source of funds that could subsidize funeral home operations.

While the preneed subsidy had long been a source of frustration for certain Missouri officials, they were powerless to stop the practice until the failure of National Prearranged Services. With the 2009 passage of Senate Bill No.1, Missouri officials feel they have a law that they can use to force a new business model upon the funeral industry.

In the case of the California Master Trust, the Department of Consumer Affairs has taken a similar position with regard to an administrative fee that has been paid to participating funeral homes for decades. Consistent with the historic industry view, the CFDA response relies in part upon the preneed guarantee and the risk assumed by the funeral home.

The position becomes tenuous when the administrative fee is judged on terms of whether a necessary service has been rendered to the trust, and whether the amount paid is reasonable for the services received. It is apparent from the documents that the DCA will also apply that analysis to what the CFDA has charged the trust. Depending upon how this controversy is resolved, other states’ regulators may ask whether the administrative fees charged to the master trust are appropriate.

As a recent Funeral Service Insider comment suggests, some industry associations have also become dependent upon the preneed subsidy. The classic guaranteed argument loses traction when facts such as those in Illinois emerge. By one account, non-guaranteed preneed contracts accounted for one third of the contracts administered by the IFDA.

But, in defense of the CMT, preneed trusts are labor-intensive enterprises where the funeral home, administrator and fiduciary have shared responsibilities. In its challenge of a different CMT issue (the maintenance of preneed records within California), the DCA acknowledges this reality while discussing the funeral home’s recordkeeping duties. Effective field examinations will require that certain preneed records be maintained at the funeral home. But, is it reasonable to impose greater administrative requirements on the funeral home without allowing any compensation to be paid to them?

The emerging regulatory challenge to the preneed subsidy is premised on the position that the funeral home’s right to preneed funds does not vest until the contract is performed. That position is consistent with Missouri’s efforts to improve portability. But, regulators must also find a consistent and reasonable position with regard to the services that they mandate from the funeral home. 

(The Funeral Service Insider excerpt was included by special permission from Kates-Boylston Publications and Funeral Service Insider.)

 

• 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 reply’s “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

The September edition of the Mortuary Management ran an excerpt from a Funeral Monitor article about the California Master Trust suffering a deficit. 

If the story is accurate about the master trust's shortage, the author's speculation about the reasons for the deficit omits a possible factor that has existed for years: the 4% administration fee. 

As explained by the Cemetery and Funeral Bureau's audit guide, California law allows for an annual 4% administration fee.  If the CMT takes the full administration fee allowed by law, no wonder the trust is running a bit short.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Who do you turn to when grass isn’t being cut, or the grave marker falls over? Or, who can approve the transfer of the ownership of my mother’s grave space? 

Ultimately, the answer depends on who owns the cemetery. But, determining who owns the cemetery can often prove confusing to both the public and the cemetery regulator. 

A recent Manteca Bulletin article about the ‘friends’ of the East Union Cemetery would seem to be just another story about a pioneer cemetery that has no funds for care and maintenance. But a closer examination suggests a situation where concerned citizens signed on to serve on a cemetery association board without understanding the accompanying responsibilities. 

East Union Cemetery is located in Manteca, California, a community of 50,000 that is located 80 miles east of San Francisco. As with most “public” cemeteries, East Union Cemetery is required by state law to file reports for authority to continue operations. But apparently, East Union Cemetery failed to file those reports a few years ago and the California Cemetery and Funeral Bureau began to send out notices.   When no one responded, the state began to investigate, and issues of ownership, missing funds and accountability began to surface. 

News reports indicate the cemetery had an endowment fund of $800,000 as recently as ten years ago. But then, one member was accused of embezzling funds and the cemetery association board membership dwindled down to two members. 

With the state still conducting its investigation, Manteka’s citizens responded to the situation by forming a new and expanded cemetery association board. However, reports and regulator press releases suggest that the new board may have exceeded its authorities in the zeal to address the cemetery’s needs. Subsequent to the appointment of the new board, the state seized the cemetery’s remaining funds and submitted a proposed agreement to the cemetery association. Shocked by this turn of events, the new board resigned, and pointed a finger at the cemetery regulators. 

The facts suggest the cemetery association board did not appreciate the laws governing cemetery care funds. It may be that the new board followed a course of action that had transpired over the past ten years. Endowment care (or perpetual care) funds are intended to provide income to subsidize the cemetery’s maintenance expenses. Most states’ cemetery laws prohibit the fund fiduciary from invading principal to meet the cemetery’s needs. 

The California Cemetery and Funeral Bureau is caught between a rock and a hard spot. Well-intended citizens stepped up to a situation that demanded attention, but acted without knowing the rules.   The Bureau’s press release and Q&A posting help tell its side of the situation. 

Individuals who have an interest in serving on a cemetery association board need to appreciate the responsibilities that accompany that service.   Those responsibilities will be defined in part by the association articles and bylaws, applicable state cemetery laws and the agreements and documents that bind the association.   As witnessed by a lawsuit filed recently in Brooklyn, New York, those legal documents have life beyond the grave. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks