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

For the past few years, some Kansas cemeteries have been getting nasty grams from their regulator about their care fund trustee’s treatment capital gains taxes. Kansas, like most states, requires a portion of each grave space sale (interment right) to be contributed to a fund or trust for the future care of the cemetery. Kansas law calls that fund a permanent maintenance fund. Missouri law calls it an endowed care trust. In some states it is defined as a perpetual care trust.

Despite what the fund is called, these state laws universally seek to provide the cemetery a source of income to pay for the upkeep of graves (while keeping the contributions in tact). That latter objective, protecting the contributions, brings cemeteries and regulators into conflict when the fund realizes capital gains and losses. The Kansas cemetery regulator has been taking the conflict a step further by interpreting the law to preclude the trustee from paying taxes or fees out of capital gains.

The Kansas regulators (like many of their peers) perceive a ‘looming’ problem with cemeteries: abandonment and the eventual transfer to the municipality or county. Cemeteries are dependent upon the cash flow that comes from space sales (and the accompanying interment fees and marker sales). When a cemetery runs out of spaces, grave maintenance will be completely dependent upon income from the care fund. To minimize the financial burden placed on the county, the Kansas regulator has adopted a very strict interpretation of the law for the purpose of preserving the care fund for the day the cemetery transfers to the government. This interpretation not only precludes the fund from distribution capital gains earnings, but also the trustee’s payment of taxes and fees from the earnings. The regulator reasons that capital gains must be allocated to principal, and the law forbids all distribution of principal.

This puts the cemetery into a bind. The staple of care fund investments, the fixed income security, has been bearing returns of less than 2% for years. When trust expenses are netted from those returns, there is little left to distribute to the cemetery. Necessity has dictated that these funds begin investing in equities. But, the Kansas philosophy would penalize the cemetery. Not only is the cemetery prohibited from using the equity earnings, the cemetery must also pay the taxes incurred on those earnings (reducing what is received from the care fund). The only ‘winner’ is the county. Or is it? If the eventual abandonment takes years, and the cemetery has been deprived income for upkeep and repairs, isn’t the county getting the property in worse shape?
 

• 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

For most Illinois funeral homes, March 15th is the due date for the filing of their preneed data with the Comptroller’s office. For those funeral homes that bolted from the IFDA after the master trust melt down, this has been an extremely frustrating process. The majority of funeral homes must file on line, with supporting documentation to be mailed no later than March 16th. Those funeral home operators of Irish descent will have reason to hoist an extra brew come St. Patty’s day: the Comptroller’s office has ample reason to change the contract reporting requirements yet again.

The 2010 reporting forms were changed to reflect SB1682’s elimination of depository accounts. However, the annual reports are still premised on the old IFDA master trust structure that credited consumer accounts with an amount of fixed interest. For each consumer preneed contract the funeral home is required to report beginning principal and interest, additions of principal and interest, withdrawals of principal and interest, and ending totals of principal and interest. In essence, the annual report views each consumer account as a passbook saving account.

No need to beat a dead horse, but the IFDA master trust was wrestled away from the association because the Comptroller determined the trust could not sustain itself. Contracts were being credited with interest rates greater than the trust’s investment return.

In response to the situation, the IFDA selected Fiduciary Partners to succeed Merrill Lynch as the master trust fiduciary. The switch to Fiduciary Partners includes a needed change in the investment strategy of the IFDA master trust: diversification through pooled funds.

To determine whether the IFDA master trust (or score of master trusts spawned in the mass exodus) will be self sustaining, the Comptroller’s office will need to revamp its annual report to track such contract issues as sales price, deposits to trust, and market value allocations. In light of the IFDA’s past use of insurance vehicles, Illinois fiduciaries should anticipate providing detail of their trusts’ investments and transactions.

Other states’ preneed regulators are also drilling down to the individual contract with new reporting requirements. Most notably, Nebraska revised its 2010 annual report to include new disclosures regarding market values, with all preneed sellers to provide individual contract data in an Excel format. The data must also be backed up with trust asset listings and transaction reports. Missouri has also implemented individual contract reporting, and Kansas has legislation pending that will impose similar requirements on cemeteries that sell preneed.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Maybe it’s a response to shrinking state budgets, or the fact that the tracking of preneed funds is becoming more effective, but state and local prosecutors are assuming an expanding role in the enforcement of preneed laws.

While a recent report released by the Missouri State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors reflects a drop in the number of preneed complaints that it handled in 2010 (44 complaints after a spike in 187 complaints in 2008 and 127 complaints in 2009), the Missouri Attorney General’s Office reports having handled 887 preneed complaints in 2010. One of those complaints ended with a former Butler, Missouri funeral operator being sentenced to seven years in prison.

As previously reported in this blog, the new Illinois Comptroller responded very quickly to a preneed complaint by referring a funeral home to the State Attorney’s office for prosecution. In 2009, the Kansas cemetery regulator worked with local prosecutors when a Hutchinson cemetery acknowledged that funds were missing from both a preneed trust and a permanent maintenance trust.

Here in the Midwest, a death care operator could go years without an audit. While some states required some form of preneed reporting, there was little evidence those reports were being reviewed. Consequently, the operator who may have had trouble making payroll had little fear of prosecution so long as the preneed contracts were being serviced. That is changing.

Illinois, Missouri, Kansas and Nebraska have implemented (or will implement) new reporting requirements (and in some cases, audits). If trusts are found to be deficient or empty, regulators seem to be more willing to turn the matter over to a prosecutor who has a vested interest in protecting voters with an empty preneed account.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It is a bit of déjà vu for Kansas cemeteries. Legislation to increase preneed trusting and to require monthly reporting was introduced in the Kansas House. But HB 2240 will look familiar to those cemetery corporations that participated in 2009 and 2010 cemetery legislative meetings conducted by the Kansas Secretary of State.

As previously reported on this blog, the Kansas Secretary of State is seeking monthly reporting so that troubled cemeteries can be identified sooner. But, even the largest cemetery corporations claim that such reporting requirements would be burdensome.

The Kansas cemetery regulator is motivated by the experience of recent cemetery failures, and the need to impose requirements intended to keep the cemetery out of receivership, or as a ward of the state. As the law currently stands, regulators have few options until the cemetery fails (i.e., is unable to honor its preneed obligations).
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

That’s the question a member of the Missouri State Board asked of his staff last Wednesday during a discussion of controversial examination procedures. Prior to the NPS fiasco, the answer to that question would have been “the Board is”. While SB1 (appropriately) continued to vest preneed supervision in the State Board, the new law also vests concurrent authorities in other state bodies.

From state to state, preneed supervision is assigned to either elected politicians, appointed agency directors or industry boards/commissions. As the Missouri Board was reminded this past week, the criticism made of vesting preneed supervision in an industry board often includes the characterization of having “put the fox in charge of the chicken coop”. But the advantage of having an industry board as the preneed supervisor is the experience those industry members bring to a complicated transaction.

If the Missouri funeral industry looks east to Illinois, it will find peers regulated by an office with a Tuesday election. The Comptroller candidates who would rather transfer preneed to another state agency than wade into a crisis that offers few answers. If Missouri funeral directors then look to the west, they will see that the fate of Kansas cemetery regulation is also dependent upon Tuesday’s elections. But after a year of meetings and warnings that changes are coming, the Kansas Secretary of State election could mean a new direction (or no direction at all).

Death care operators are often frustrated when regulators take actions that demonstrate a lack of understanding of the business (or worse yet, a misunderstanding of applicable laws). The risk to both the death care operator and consumer is when the elected preneed regulator allows politics to influence the reform process. Elected regulators may pose the greatest challenge to developing effective preneed supervision, and then maintaining that system.

While Missouri funeral homes may be frustrated by the past year’s changes, the Missouri reform process has been slow and measured in part because the Division of Professional Registration is contemplating its role when someone asks “Who’s the Boss?” In the future, effective preneed supervision must be a shared responsibility.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

For the past several years, most preneed sellers were more likely to have been audited by the IRS than their state funeral or cemetery regulator. That will likely change in the next year or two for operators in a Midwest state.

The common response to an IRS audit would be to throw the relevant records into a box the weekend prior to the scheduled trip to the examiner’s office. But since the point of sale for preneed is at the funeral home, most states begin the examination process at the funeral home. In some states, the historical approach was to initiate the exam with little or no advance warning. Under such circumstances, it would behoove the preneed seller to organize and maintain his preneed records so as to expedite the examination.

While the duty to prove compliance is upon the licensee, few state death care regulators have issued any guidance regarding preneed record requirements. One challenge to providing such guidance is that a different set of rules is required for each method of preneed funding. Generally speaking, cemeteries are confined to trust funding because deliveries are made prior to death (thus eliminating insurance for much of what the cemetery sells). However, funeral homes often use both trust and insurance, and often multiple insurance companies and multiple trusts (Pre-88, Post-88, New Law, Old Law, my trust, state association trust, etc). And then some states also allow for depository accounts.

Sellers should set up different ‘boxes’ (or file drawers) for each method of funding. If the seller has offered insurance, trust and depository accounts, then plan on three drawers of documents. And if the seller has used Forethought, Homesteaders and NGL, three dividers will be needed for the insurance drawer. Similarly, the trust-funded drawer should have a Pre-88 folder, a Post-88 folder, and a new law folder. A folder for each bank used to fund a preneed contract should divide the depository drawer.

For the funeral home that approached the different sources of funding as diversification, this benefit comes at the cost of time to organize and maintain the necessary paperwork. Those operators that take the time to prepare and organize their records will minimize the examination’s disruption to their business, and the potential for citations for non-compliance.

In upcoming posts, the content of those folders will be addressed.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

Families and funeral homes harmed by NPS will hope that company’s owners and officers have to face a judge like the Honorable Richard Rome.

The Hutchinson News reported that District Judge Richard Rome rejected a plea bargain for probation, and sentenced Fairlawn Burial Park’s owner to almost 5 years in prison. A Kansas Secretary of State audit of Fairlawn’s permanent maintenance trust and preneed merchandise trust found several hundreds of thousands of dollars missing. The owner’s attorney suggested the funds were used to keep the cemetery operating.

While prosecutors negotiated a deal to replenish the trusts, the judge disregarded the plea bargain and sentenced Ms. McDonough to prison. The message to operators is that if the cemetery needs funds for operations, don’t borrow them from the trusts.
 

• 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

Kansas regulators want to be able to put a new sign in front of a troubled Hutchison cemetery: Under New Management! And, it would please the state of Kansas and the city of Hutchison if that new management team does not include them.

State and local officials appreciate that the grave lot owners, and the community, are better served by keeping cemetery ownership in the private sector. So, when the operator’s noncompliance threatens the cemetery’s viability, regulators must act, or eventually face the liabilities of running the cemetery.

Some Hutchison citizens may be puzzled why the recent plea does not include mandatory time. Getting the cemetery into the hands of a reputable operator has a higher priority, and the old owner’s cooperation may be needed. Fulfilling preneed contracts and addressing permanent maintenance trust deficiencies will better serve the Hutchison community.

The Kansas regulators must now find a suitable successor.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Topeka Capital-Journal has identified the essence of the Secretary of State’s plan for Kansas cemetery regulation: addressing cemetery problems before the trusts go upside down.

There are two types of cemetery trusts: perpetual care trusts and preneed trusts. Perpetual care trusts (or permanent maintenance trusts) provide the cemetery crucial funding for mowing, and the other expenses related to care of graves, markers, roads and trees. Preneed trusts are required when cemeteries sell services and merchandise (such as vaults and markers) where delivery is deferred to a later date.

Both types of cemetery trusts have a funding liability that serves as its waterline. It is fairly common for a trust to ‘take on water’ when the value of its assets falls below the required deposit balance. As the trust takes on water, the operator’s liability will become so great that it will flip the boat, and take all aboard down.

A cemetery trust going ‘upside down’ can be an indicator the operator has used the consumers’ payments to pay bills instead of making the required deposits. These are challenging times for cemeteries, and some operators may find it easier to ‘borrow’ from the consumer than to go to the bank for a loan or to implement difficult business changes.

The Kansas Secretary of State has taken the position that it only has the tools to spot those cemetery operations that are listing dangerously to one side or the other. To avoid the expense of salvaging a shipwreck, the Secretary wants the ability to intervene earlier. To identify troubled vessels, the Secretary of State’s legislative agenda would have required monthly reporting from the cemetery operator and the trustee. However, the Secretary’s plan ran afoul of the industry’s supertanker: SCI.

At a legislative hearing, SCI took the position that the burden of monthly reporting “would greatly overshadow any benefit which could otherwise be obtained through the more practical option of annual reporting.” For the large, public companies subjected to regular reviews by the Securities Exchange Commission and the Internal Revenue Services, a state mandate requiring monthly reporting might be redundant and burdensome. However, the industry continues to be dominated by the independent operator, for whom the Secretary is the principal regulator.

In the next Kansas legislative session, certain compromises need to be struck for the benefit of the consumer. More frequent reporting should help flag irregularities that are symptomatic of the troubled operator. Independent fiduciary reporting is also needed as a cross check to what the operator is filing. And, if this is redundant to an operator’s existing reporting systems, the law could provide the flexibility to allow an operator to ‘clep out’ of monthly reporting.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

With two of the nation’s top ten college basketball teams, Kansans are exhibiting clear symptoms of March Madness. With Topeka located between Lawrence and Manhattan, bipartisanship may be tested as tensions mount this week with the Big 12 tournament and the NCAA seedings announcement on Sunday. When Kansas legislators resume their meetings the week of March 15th, they may hear from a third constituency that has a different ‘madness’ in mind: the Secretary of State’s cemetery legislation.

When the Secretary of State’s staff began holding hearings last June, HB 2712 and HB 2713 may not have been what they had in mind. With the intent to encourage industry input, the Secretary of State formed a committee of cemetery operators and state representatives that was to meet for an afternoon every two weeks. With an aggressive agenda in hand, the first meeting included a handful of ‘spectators’. After that initial meeting, attendance dropped and fewer cemetery operators participated in the process.

Undaunted, the Secretary of State staff held its meetings over the course of the summer and fall of 2009, and outlined the problems with enforcing Kansas’ cemetery laws: funding for audits, wholesale trusting requirements, ambivalent and uninformed fiduciaries, and underfunded cemetery trusts. At the conclusion of the committee meetings, the Secretary of State requested assistance from Kansas’ cemetery industry. When nothing concrete was offered by the industry, the Secretary of State offered options between a state-mandated trust or revisions to fix the current law. That portion of the cemetery industry that attended the meeting choose a fix of the current law.

Among the changes proposed by the legislation, the following may prove the most controversial to some cemetery operators:

• The filing of monthly reports to the Secretary of State
• A new fee based on the reported transactions
• A switch of preneed merchandise trusting from wholesale costs to 50% of retail
• A new fiduciary definition that will limit the institutions that may serve as trustee
• An expansion of the fiduciary’s duties

While these bills do not reflect what the Kansas Secretary of State had hoped to accomplish when the process began last summer, the legislation reflects the realities of the current environment: growing political pressure to provide consumers greater protections and a fragmented and diverse cemetery industry.   Despite how some operators may respond, the Secretary of State could have gone much further (and may in future years).
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Regulators in Missouri and Kansas will be pursuing legislation this spring for more authority in providing oversight to cemeteries. With its Burr Oak problems, Illinois can’t be too far behind.

Whether it is the economy or the unscrupulous owner, regulators are finding they lack both the expertise and authority to properly protect the cemetery consumer.

The media loves a story like the one that broke on Friday about the Maryland cemetery owner that was arrested in Texas. In 2008, Mr. Deffenbaugh was charged with felony theft, and allowed to avoid prison time with an arrangement that was to provide restitution of $1,000,000. When it came time to pay the piper in 2009, the owner staged his own death by “falling off his boat” in the Chesapeake Bay.

In contrast, brief news reports were offered about a Barrett, Missouri cemetery that faces bankruptcy after its owner died, leaving no one to continue its operation.

When regulators seek reform legislation, they have both situations in mind, but it is the “Deffenbaugh card” that wins legislative votes. Cemetery owners rail when the card is played, but it is the troubled cemetery operator that consumes the regulators’ time and resources. With regard to the ‘other’ situation, there are few solutions for failing cemeteries, other than passing the responsibility for upkeep to cities or counties (and their taxpayers).

Finding effective answers to both situations will require greater interaction between the regulator and the cemetery industry. If they are to become more effective at providing oversight, cemetery regulators must gain crucial experience that can only be derived from reputable operators. And until the regulator has a firmer grip on the industry’s better business practices, legislation will often represent a give and take exchange that may span years until a workable solution is reached.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Death care regulators seem to believe that the majority of funeral home and cemetery operators are honest and well intended.  But, the regulators must contend with the occasional operator who views trust funds as their own.  Before taking offense with the regulator's skepticism, operators need to reflect on the arrogance of operators such as those reflected in a recent Kansas news article. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Like the Swine Flu, a preneed virus has been spreading across the Midwest.   Looking for a cure, state legislators and regulators have been forming research teams.  It all started last summer, with Missouri’s Chapter 436 (funeral) working group and Chapter 214 (cemetery) working group.  Now, Illinois is establishing a preneed task force, and Kansas is forming a cemetery committee.  But, in contrast to the Missouri Chapter 436 working group, the forthcoming preneed research teams are limiting the industry’s involvement in the proceedings.  It’s not that the patient has a terminal condition that is contagious, but rather a reflection that organizing industry participation can be akin to herding cats.

Take the May edition of the American Funeral Director as an example. There are no less than six articles addressing preneed. As Mr. Creedy points out, everyone in the industry has an opinion and some can’t help but apply a general prescription for the preneed transaction. But, preneed is governed by more than 50 different state laws, making the transaction impervious to such generalizations. Boiling the issues down for the sake of an editor’s guidelines only contributes to the confusion of our industry members. While these types of articles often quote experts with opposing (and often, valid) opinions, death care operators tend to remember only the opinions that support their preneed program (or, supports their opposition to another form of preneed).

The preneed problem involves complex issues that require an in-depth analysis by our respective state legislators and regulators. For the sake of our consumers, we need to provide legislators and regulators objective and unbiased information about all aspects of preneed.

This patient is very ill, but not terminal. There are no easy cures or solutions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

So why is it so tough to provide preneed portability?   Because the transaction has been defined by state law as a contract between a consumer and a death care company, and federal regulators tend to agree.   When the issue has arisen in the context of federal preemption, the interests of the state regulator have prevailed on the grounds the transaction is ‘local’ in nature, and the state has an overriding interest in policing the transaction. This perception permeates federal oversight of the preneed transaction, including that provided by the Internal Revenue Service and the Securities Exchange Commission. So long as preneed is defined as a guaranteed contract for goods and services, complete portability will be difficult to achieve.

Consumer advocates view the preneed transaction as a savings account to be safeguarded until the death, and some state laws accommodate that perception. Kansas requires 100% trusting, an accrual of income and assures portability by granting the purchaser the right to designate a different funeral home to perform the contract.

However, if the Kansas contract was written by a funeral home with its own preneed trust, there has to be a trust agreement between the original funeral home and the fiduciary. Despite what the law states, the new funeral home is not bound to that trust agreement. In the absence of a trust agreement, the fiduciary does not want the responsibility of ensuring the new funeral home performs the preneed contract according to its terms. If the new funeral home seeks to have the funds transferred to its own bank, what responsibilities does the trustee have to ensure the receiving institution will accept the funds in a fiduciary capacity? (Is anyone familiar with Bremen Bank?) 

So long as the new funeral home is within the state of Kansas, the state’s preneed law could be revised to afford the fiduciary some protections. However, state law will not remedy the situation where the consumer has moved to another state. 

When faced with this situation, insurance companies protect themselves by adopting policies that restrict policy assignments. It is not that uncommon to encounter insurance companies that prohibit policy ownership by funeral homes. Insurance companies will be more lenient with funeral homes with whom they have an agency relationship.

For states like Missouri, portability faces the challenges of the seller/provider distinction and lower trusting requirements. Missouri allows preneed sold by third party entities, and requires the seller to have a contract with the funeral home or cemetery prior to marketing to consumers. In keeping with this requirement, regulators recently looked at language to improve portability. However, that result was confusing, and did not consider the fiduciary issues. The Pennsylvania State Board of Funeral Directors had similar experiences with a recent effort to address portability. 

If a Missouri contract has been trusted using the minimum requirements, the contract becomes less attractive to other funeral homes as time passes from its sales date. There may come a time when the contract becomes a liability.  Under that circumstance, the consumer will have difficulty finding a funeral home willing to accept the contract. 

The irony of the NPS failure is that the company’s program offered the consumer interstate portability that only the national death care companies could match.   But the NPS customers have not only lost the portability of their contracts, some face the prospect of their named provider going out of business. 

Steps can be taken to improve portability, but it will not be as simple as mandating a result. Increasing funding requirements and assuring insurance assignment rights will help. To overcome resistance by funeral directors, protections against ‘twisting’ could be offered. 

However, if the consumer wants complete portability, he or she will need to consider the non-guaranteed preneed contract. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks