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

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