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

It seems paradoxical to see preneed regulators ramping up audit programs while state budgets are being slashed to the bone. Yet, several I-70 corridor states will soon implement new preneed audit programs.

Missouri’s preneed funeral audits will be funded out of a combination of license fees and preneed contract fees. Missouri’s new cemetery law did not provide for any additional fees to offset the expense of a new reporting system and audits, and so, one most anticipate the state will look to recover from its expenses from non-compliant cemeteries.

Colorado had a modest, but significant, law change: the preneed regulator was granted authority to assess fees against preneed sellers to fund examinations. With a source for funding, new audit procedures have been submitted for approval.

With regard to cemeteries, Kansas quietly promulgated a regulation authorizing a $20 per preneed contract fee. Kansas would like to use a portion of those fees to implement a preneed contract database that would provide data that would be used in cemetery audits.

Nebraska also has plans to implement a new preneed database for auditing master trusts. In the absence of funding legislation, the Department of Insurance must use a carrot and stick approach with the state’s larger preneed sellers. Similar to the Illinois approach, the Nebraska stick would be the assessment of audit expenses against the non-compliant preneed seller. Illinois’ recent preneed law change (SB1682) raised the possible assessment from $7,500 to $20,000. For the preneed seller found to have issues of material non-compliance, the costs of a full audit could cost tens of thousands of dollars. And then there’s the issue of funding up deficiencies. As the Illinois law spells out, the audit penalty cannot be paid out of the preneed trust.

For preneed sellers from Illinois to Colorado, it isn’t a matter of whether there will be exams or audits, but when. For some states, those exams will come sooner than others. Missouri is currently training new examiners, and could well release them on those sellers who miss the October 31st renewal deadline.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

Several states have passed laws in the past few years mandating greater preneed oversight. But with state budgets in decline after the 2008 market crash, regulators are hard pressed to find a way to pay for consumer protection.

Colorado’s new law simply states that the contract seller shall bear the cost of its examination.

In failed legislation earlier this year, Kansas sought to finance preneed cemetery oversight through a per contract fee. Sources indicate that Kansas will attempt to implement a $20 per contract fee later this year through new regulations.

Missouri took a hybrid approach last year through seller/agent/provider license fees and a $36 per contract fee. Ten months into the mission to provide preneed oversight, the State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors do not have enough data to know how well this approach will work. The first reporting period is still four months away, and no one knows how many preneed contracts have been sold since August 28th. As a consequence, license fees will likely be increased, which hits the smaller operator the hardest.

In a 180 degree change from last year, the State Board is mulling whether to increase the per contract fee, knowing that most sellers pass that fee on the consumer. In response to pressures from consumer advocates, the State Board had originally taken the position that sellers should be required to absorb the $36 fee. The reality is that the costs of preneed oversight are passed on to the consumer in one form or another by the preneed seller, and the per-contract fee provides transparency to the consumer.

Agencies, such as the State Board, that are charged with licensing preneed sellers and agents, need to charge some form of fee to cover the administrative costs of licensure. However, there is justification that the transaction (i.e. the consumer) should primarily bear the cost of examinations and oversight. On the other hand, it is not equitable that consumers bear the costs of disciplinary proceedings for the operator that fails to materially comply with the law.

With the per-contract fee, consumers and operators are provided a clear benchmark of the costs of their state’s preneed protection program. Such a fee will place a burden on regulators who must budget for fixed program costs (such as dedicated staff).
 

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

Missouri will look to a combination of licensing fees from preneed sellers, providers and agents to fund a portion of the projected costs of preneed oversight under SB1. But, most of SB1’s enforcement price will be funded by the $36 to be charged for each preneed contract sold. The ‘per contract’ fee is not new to the Missouri preneed industry, but the fee does represent a substantial increase from the $2 charged under the prior law.

According to State Board’s statistics, the Missouri preneed industry has sold an average of more than 22,000 preneed contracts each year during the past 6 years. Using that average, the new per contract fee will increase the State Board’s annual budget by more than $750,000. Appropriately, consumers and death care companies are asking how this budget will be used.

Another question is who should bare this expense. When the fee was at $2, many funeral homes absorbed that cost. But in today’s economy, the fee represents an expense that many funeral directors can no longer absorb. One of the proposed emergency rules reflects the division that exists between the Attorney General and some the State Board members with regard to how this new fee should be assessed.

With the purchase price of a preneed contract based on the funeral home’s current prices, a preneed seller must already absorb the costs of developing and maintaining a compliant program. Funeral homes and cemeteries must also bare a portion of SB1’s costs through new licensing fees. By passing the per contract fee on to consumers, the death care industry can begin to make regulators accountable to the public for the oversight they plan to provide for the preneed consumer.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Special Deputy Receiver for NPS recently reported the company’s “negative net worth” to be just short of one billion dollars. Rightfully, regulators are looking at the NPS fiduciaries for culpability in the losses that will be sustained by consumers and funeral homes in the years to come. In the meantime, Missouri state officials are working with industry representatives to reform Chapter 436. As they consider how to better safeguard consumers’ funds, regulators and legislators need to appreciate that preneed sellers and fiduciaries have overlapping responsibilities that are affected by a state’s trusting requirements. 

In states with lower trusting requirements, the preneed seller typically assumes responsibility for individual preneed contract accounting. Besides the ability to report to consumers, this function is also crucial to the fiduciary’s income tax reporting. In states with higher trusting percentages, the trust often assumes greater responsibilities for the accounting and reporting functions. 

Historically, preneed laws have restricted preneed trust expenses to the fee that was typically charged by banks or trust companies for estate planning business. Some state laws also restrict the trustee’s ability contract with the preneed seller for administrative services.   While restrictions are needed to avoid a circumvention of the trusting requirements, more latitude should be afforded the fiduciary. In exchange, preneed sellers and fiduciaries should be required to make disclosures about those who provide the trust services, and the fees paid for the various services. 

The Texas Department of Banking and the Texas Funeral Directors Association broached these issues ten years ago.    In Opinion 98-15, the TDOB found that the preneed trustee fees could be used to pay for marketing expenses, outside recordkeeping for preneed contracts, and investment advice. (It is generally recognized that the trustee can incur expenses for trust accounting, legal expenses and tax reporting on behalf of the trust.)

 Eventually, Texas may review its preneed law in light of the fraud committed on its consumers and funeral directors by NPS. I suspect NPS exploited the Texas provisions allowing for a depository.   Before eliminating the authority to use the depository arrangement, the Texas legislature needs to appreciate the difficulty the industry has in attracting quality fiduciary services.   

Allowing the trust to bear the expense of compliance does not come without the risk of abuse. Services must be necessary to the trust, and reasonable in cost. One check against such abuse would be the requirement that services must be performed pursuant to a contract with the fiduciary. Transparency of the relationships among the parties, and the fees paid could serve as another check.   The IRS will likely require such transparency within the next few years as fiduciaries are required to ‘unbundle’ their fees for income tax reporting purposes.

Eventually, we may see death care fiduciary fees being broken down by the following services:

Asset management (investment)

Sub account administration

Tax reporting

Legal (contracts/compliance)

Legal (liability/litigation)

Custodial services

Regulatory and consumer reporting

Marketing

Ten years later, the TDOB opinion may be dated in terms of what constitutes a reasonable fee. Sub account administration can run as high as 85 basis points. Asset management fees will differ on the manager’s expertise, and 50 basis points is a fairly common fee. Tax reporting expenses can differ substantially based on the diversification of the trust assets.   Distribution oversight may require periodic examinations, and the expense that accompanies on-site reviews. Periodic statements to consumers and regulators will require administrative enhancements. However, economies of scale are crucial to minimizing these costs, and pooled administration will be key to providing the requisite economies of scale. Several years ago, the Office of the Comptroller of Currency recognized the role national banks could play in meeting the needs of the death care industry.

The death care trust is a different breed of animal from a bank’s staple trust business of estate planning.   Consequently, legislators need to allow fiduciaries to contract for those services crucial to enhancing the compliance that the preneed transaction so desperately needs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks