Cemeteries that contain a Lost Cause monument are the most susceptible to a racial justice challenge.  For purposes of our posts, a Lost Cause monument is a Confederate statue or obelisk erected between 1890 and 1920.  As discussed in this attached article, Confederate memorial societies actively erected Lost Cause monuments during that period, with obelisks and statues being the favorite forms of monument.

Frequently, a memorial society such as the United Daughters of the Confederacy would purchase a lot without intent to make a burial.   The Lost Cause monument would be erected on the empty lot for the purpose of serving as the focal point of future Confederate memorial day services.   These monuments often refer generally to the Confederate dead or the Confederacy.   When erected on an empty burial lot, the monument is memorializing a cause.  For the cemetery, this most likely is a violation of its governing documents.  From recorded garden plats to the rules and regulations, cemetery governing documents restrict the use of a burial lot to the interment of human remains and the memorialization of that person.  The October 2020 Kansas City Star article referenced in our prior post describes three such Lost Cause monuments.

Fairview Cemetery in Liberty has a 20 foot obelisk and statue erected in 1904 by the United Confederate Veterans.  The monument did not reference a specific soldier, but rather the “honor of the confederate soldiers of Clay County”.  We would assume the cemetery’s lot book is silent on any burial to the lot because the city has initiated a legal proceeding to revest ownership of the lot.  Missouri law permits the revesting of a lot’s ownership when no burial has been made to the lot within 50 years of its sale.

Forest Hill Cemetery’s Lost Cause monument is a 40+ foot tall obelisk and statute erected by the United Daughters of the Confederacy in 1902.  That monument’s history is provided in this attached article.   As the article explains, the cemetery donated lots for the remains of Confederate soldiers to be relocated to Forest Hill.  So, the cemetery probably also donated the lot(s) used for the Lost Cause monument.

The Lost Cause monument in Woodlawn Cemetery (Independence) is a 20 foot obelisk erected in 1924 by the United Daughters of the Confederacy.  It too has a generic reference to “The Memory of the Soldiers of the Confederacy”.  The following hyperlink is to a webpage about that monument.

While there could be push back to any memorial referencing the Confederacy, a memorial to a soldier buried in the lot at least complies with governing cemetery documents’ burial requirement.  A challenge must then be based on whether the memorial complies with the cemetery’s monument regulations.  But for a Lost Cause monument, the cemetery could face a legal challenge that by allowing the monument to be maintained the cemetery is violating its own governing documents.

In our next post we will look at the role a cemetery’s rules and regulations may play in a racial justice challenge.

A cemetery may not be where one would expect to find the racial justice movement, but several Kansas City area cemeteries have been challenged about Confederate monuments found within their boundaries.  An October 2020 Kansas City Star article reported on Fairview Cemetery in Liberty, Forest Hill & Calvary Cemetery in south Kansas City and Union Cemetery near downtown Kansas City.  Each of these cemeteries responded differently to their racial justice challenge, and for the City of Liberty, the dispute continues to intensify.  The Confederate monument dilemma may be more common in the Midwest and the South than most realize.  As the Star article reports, several other Kansas City area cemeteries also contain Confederate memorials.

When challenged, cemeteries do not want to be caught flat-footed like Forest Hill & Calvary Cemetery.  Forest Hill is located within a black community and has one of the area’s larger obelisk monuments dedicated during the “Lost Cause” movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.  The cemetery, owned by a national company, turned to its “reputation management” department for a written response:

… the [owner], wishes the monument were gone. Were it up to the company, the sanctity of the individual Confederate graves, marked with the letters CSA, for Confederate States of America, would be preserved.  But the monument erected in 1902 “In Memory of Our Confederate Dead” would go.  …. Unfortunately, this is an expression of free speech of a private party.   Had this monument been erected in a common easement, we would have already removed the statue.

The problem with this response is that there is no right of free speech that accompanies the purchase of a grave space.  Cemeteries reserve the right to regulate decorations, markers and monuments to maintain the decorum of the cemetery and avoid offense to families that come to visit their relatives’ graves.   A national company knows very well that a grave purchase conveys limited property rights, and not a fee simple estate.  To suggest otherwise fuels the misconception among lot owners that that may do what they wish with their lot.  While the ‘freedom of speech on private property’ defense may seem to a quick way to neutralize a racial justice challenge, it can easily be proven as disingenuous, and harmful to the cemetery’s reputation.

In our next post we will address the first step in preparing a response to the Confederate dilemma: distinguishing a memorial to a dead soldier from the Lost Cause monument.

For years, Illinois law has prohibited funeral homes from being named as beneficiaries to consumers’ life insurance policies.  In response to frauds committed by National Prearranged Services (NPS), many states amended their preneed laws to prohibit life insurance ownership by a funeral home.  NPS had structured its preneed program as owner of insurance policies sold to preneed consumers.   Then as owner, NPS borrowed and surrendered policies without consumer or funeral home knowledge.  Illinois took its restrictions further by barring the funeral home from being made beneficiary of a life insurance policy.

But the Illinois beneficiary prohibition has proved problematic for the consumer seeking to qualify for public assistance.  Typically, consumers will exclude life insurance surrender values from their assets by assigning the policy’s beneficial rights as consideration for a preneed contract.  The Illinois law precluded this and consumers resorted to third party trustees to qualify for public assistance.   That solution was cumbersome, and added costs to the consumer.

A bill was introduced in the Illinois Legislature this session to resolve this problem.  HB295 provides a structure for consumers to assign all or a portion of their life insurance to a funeral home in exchange for a guaranteed preneed contract.  The bill seems well thought through from both the consumer side and the funeral industry side.  However, we understand that cemetery representatives have voiced late opposition to the bill.    From a quick read of the bill, one could conclude the assignment is limited to funeral homes.  However, the bill clearly allows for assignments for cemetery merchandise and services.  To weigh the validity of their opposition, the cemetery representatives need to make their criticism public.

Financial relief is coming to Missouri counties with cemeteries.  House Bill 443 would allow county commissioners to withdraw principal from perpetual care funds to pay for cemetery maintenance.   When combined with the authorities granted counties four years ago by HB 51, Missouri county commissioners can now diversify cemetery perpetual care trusts and restate those trusts to allow fixed distributions of up to 5% of the trust’s value.  The county cemetery would then no longer be restricted to distributions of net income.

In stark contrast, Missouri cities can neither diversify cemetery perpetual care trusts nor make a fixed distribution.  Prior to 2017, Missouri cemetery laws restricted how counties and cities could invest their perpetual care trusts.   With HB 51, the Missouri Legislature authorized the diversification of county care trusts.  (Follow this hyperlink to our 2017 post about HB 51.)  However, Missouri’s cities missed that boat and remain subject to RSMo. Section 214.020.  City perpetual care trusts are still restricted to investing in government bonds.

Missouri’s cities need the same authorities granted to counties by HB 443 and HB 51.  As we have been reporting over the past several months, cities need more flexibility in how they can administer cemetery care trusts.

In our prior post, we recommended that the Evergreen Cemetery Association explore the Minnesota trust code provisions regarding the trustee’s power to adjust (501C.1112).  This is something other “excluded” cemeteries should also consider.  By excluded, we mean cemeteries owned by associations, churches, cities or counties that are typically excluded from regulation of for-profit cemeteries.  Some states define their exclusions very broadly and some very narrowly.  Some states even make important distinctions between the different classes of excluded cemeteries.  So entities looking for larger care fund distributions have to start by determining their applicable state laws.

An excluded cemetery must first determine if their state has a cemetery law that restricts trust investments.  As discussed in the Evergreen post, Minnesota appears to have a law that authorizes association care funds to diversify their care fund assets (Minn. Stat. 306.38).  But some states have restrictive investment laws for excluded cemeteries.  For example, Missouri has different cemetery investment standards for municipal cemeteries versus county cemeteries.  Missouri municipalities are restricted to investing their care funds in government bonds and depository accounts. (RSMo §214.020) As we reported in prior care fund posts, although the fixed income investments were once the staple of cemetery care fund, bond rates are low and are projected to be so for years to come.  In contrast, Missouri counties are allowed to place their cemetery care funds with fund managers that follow the prudent investor rule. (RSMo §214.160) That has not always been the case.  The associations that represent Missouri counties and county commissioners successfully lobbied for legislation to allow diversification. (HB 51)  We wrote on this issue a few years ago. (Missouri County Cemeteries: Legislation to Allow Trust Diversification).  If an exclude cemetery is prohibited from diversifying its care fund trust, no trustee is going to consider a unitrust option.

The excluded cemetery next needs to determine what unitrust option is available under its state trust code.  The laws enabling trustees to redefine income for trust distributions generally fall into one of two camps: the power to adjust or the power to convert to a unitrust.  Some states have passed both types of laws.  These laws are not uniform, so therefore the state law must be reviewed closely.  We did find the attached chart comparing the states’ trust codes, but it is a bit dated.  The Minnesota reference has since been revised.

In our next posts, we will look at some of the procedural issues required by these unitrust laws.

The Funeral Director Daily recently wrote about the Evergreen Cemetery Association in Brainerd, Minnesota.  Like so many cemeteries, Evergreen is running a deficit and its board is worried about the future.  The Funeral Director Daily suggests the situation cries out for a relaxation of government restrictions over the Association’s care fund.  If the cemetery could withdraw more from the care fund, the Association would not need to seek support for the county.  We too have posted about the need for more states to pass legislation allowing cemeteries to take the unitrust option for their care funds.  But, Minnesota laws may already provide a solution for cemeteries like Evergreen.

Our focus has been on statutes that primarily target for-profit cemeteries.  These cemeteries are subject to restrictive laws that limit care fund distributions to net income.  But most states’ cemetery laws exempt certain classes of cemeteries from regulation or distribution restriction.  Accordingly, cemeteries owned and operated by churches, municipalities/counties and non-profit associations are typically subject to lower standards than for-profit cemeteries.

Minnesota law makes such distinctions between the different types of cemeteries.  Evergreen appears to be a non-profit cemetery association, with a care and improvement fund established under Minn. Stat. 306.37.  Investment of Evegreen’s care fund would likely be governed by Minn. Stat. 306.38.  The FDD article references a restrictive investment standard that incorporates from the savings bank law.  That particular statute actually governs municipal and county cemeteries.  But if you were to drill down into the savings bank law, you will find the ability to hold equity securities.  (Interestingly, the Minnesota Commerce Department website indicates the state does not currently have any savings banks.)  In summary, cemeteries operated by non-profits and municipalities/counties do seem to have the authority to invest their care funds in the equities that will produce a higher yield.

To get to those higher yields, a non-profit association or municipality could have their care fund trustee explore Minnesota law that authorizes the power of adjustment between principal and income.  Over the past two decades, most states have passed a form of trust law that enables trustees to redefine income for purposes of distributions.  These laws generally fall into one of two camps: the power to adjust or the power to convert to a unitrust.  Some states have passed both types of laws.  Minnesota appears to be in the power to adjust camp.   Some say that this camp provides the trustee the greatest flexibility in meeting the needs of income beneficiaries.  Where the unitrust statute generally caps fixed distributions at 5%, the power of adjustment could justify a higher level of distribution.

With Evergreen, the 5% unitrust could provide an annual $30,000 distribution that exceeds the current deficient (and the county’s $20,000 contribution).   Where the power to adjust could authorize the trustee to make an even higher distribution, the Minnesota statute requires justification.  Because of that requirement, cemeteries like Evergreen should anticipate push back from their care fund trustee when queried about the power to adjust.

Exercising the power to adjust most frequently occurs with estate planning situations where the bank and its attorneys are more comfortable.  Bank compliance attorneys do not typically have experience with states’ fragmented cemetery laws.  Cemetery laws are confusing, and frequently archaic.

Cemetery trusts also tend to be smaller than the more lucrative estate planning trust.  The estate planning trust may hold millions of dollars, and generate the fees that warrant the risk and expense of making adjustments between principal and income.  With non-profit cemetery associations and municipalities, the care fund may only be a fee hundred thousand dollars.   Those funds may be too small for the risk perceived by the bank.

But there are arguments to be made on behalf of the cemetery.  A care fund does not have the classic competing interests of the principal and income beneficiaries of an estate planning trust.   In contrast to the estate planning situation, the beneficiary interests of the cemetery and the lot owner are more closely aligned.  Both seek to provide care for the cemetery.  If current care cannot be sufficiently addressed, and the cemetery falls into disrepair, future maintenance costs will be even higher.

Banks may also push back because the care fund is too small to adequately diversify.  To achieve long term returns in excess of 5%, the care fund must be diversified.  Many banks may feel that a $600,000 care fund may be too small to adequately diversify.  However there are fiduciaries and fund managers with death care experience that can help small care funds achieve these types of returns.

Cemetery operators are conservative by nature, and would always prefer a statute that expressly authorizes fixed distributions.  But these are times that require operators to seek solutions from what applicable law allows.  In the case of many ‘exempt’ cemeteries, the broader state trust code may authorize the necessary change to how the care fund is administered.

In our next post on cemetery preneed, we want to revisit a post from June 2012 (Cemetery Preneed Challenges: bucket accounting).  As discussed in that post, the cemetery prearrangement differs from its funeral counterpart because the cemetery can deliver property and merchandise prior to the purchaser’s death.  When establishing a preneed program, a cemetery will want to avoid a common mistake where individual contracts are required for each item of property, merchandise or service.  Multiple contracts are confusing to consumers and tend to end with missed payments and lapsed contracts.

When a single preneed contract is offered, the form should include an application of payments provision where interment rights are paid before merchandise and services.  Interment rights should be transferred to the consumer upon the payment of that part of the purchase price.  Do not defer the transfer until the entire purchase price is paid.

After the interment purchase price, the application of payments should then prioritize payment of the memorialization merchandise.  These items increase in cost at a rate that exceeds returns on the prearrangement funding.  Cemetery prearrangements are most likely funded by a trust.  Where a trust may net 3 or 4%, granite and bronze costs are climbing much faster.  To retain more profit from the prearrangement, the memorialization merchandise must be delivered as soon as the price is paid.

The prearrangement contract must also get consumer approval for delivery of memorialization merchandise.  Consumers do not like to be reminded of their mortality, and a marker on their grave space tends to do just that.  The consumer preference is to defer delivery until after death.  Accordingly, the prearrangement contract provisions must include a default that provides for delivery.  The consumer will have to assume the costs of storage if delivery to the gravesite is deferred.

Burial prearrangements also tend to be paid by installments over multiple years.  Consequently, these arrangements frequently include finance or installment fees.  These fees represent an offset to reduced trust earnings.

While preserving traditional burials should be a cemetery’s top preneed priority, a priority should also be placed on the surviving lot owner that is opting for cremation.  The Wirthlin studies that we’ve been referencing in prior posts suggest that most grave spaces sold by cemeteries during the past 20 years will never be used.  One Wirthlin finding indicated that only 16 percent of those surveyed planned to have their cremains buried in a grave space.  With a certain frequency, we see clients’ preneed funeral contracts being flipped from traditional burial to cremation by a surviving widow.  In arranging the burial of her husband, the widow was surprised to learn that the preneed funeral contract did not cover significant cemetery charges such as opening/closing services, a vault and a marker.  Not wanting to burden her children with those costs for her own burial, the widow frequently goes back to the funeral to change her prearrangement to cremation.

When the widow responds to cemetery marketing by expressing preference for cremation, the cemetery can attempt to make the traditional burial more affordable by offering installment funded prearrangement.  But if the widow has made up her mind about cremation, the cemetery needs to have options for inurnment of her cremains in her grave space, or with her husband’s remains in his grave space.  The latter is a popular choice for many widows, but cemetery rules and regulations may prohibit this option.

It is very common for a cemetery’s rules and regulations limit a standard grave space to the interment of a single human remain.  During a meeting of a state cemetery association, we asked the attendees how many allowed for a second interment of cremains to a lawn grave space.  Only about half answered yes.  By implication, that meant that most of those cemeteries had rules that would not allow multiple sets of cremains to be interred in a grave space.  Even though grave deeds may recite the single remains restriction, cemeteries can eliminate this type of restriction by an amendment to the rules and regulations.  The amendment could be limited to the situation were the first spouse had a traditional burial, and the surviving spouse desires cremation and to have his/her ashes buried with their mate.

When the rules and regulations are amended to allow for a second right of interment, the cemetery should also give thought to the remaining grave space.  When the surviving spouse transfers the grave space to children for their use, the cemetery rules could permit multiple cremains interments (below ground) or a family columbarium. Some cemeteries seek to preclude family columbariums because of additional maintenance costs.  Locating a columbarium or bench in the center of a lawn grave space requires more work from the mowing crew.  But to offset that, the cemetery can require a larger endowed care contribution.

In offering preneed burial plans to the prospective cremation client, cemeteries first need to revise their rules and regulations to address three cremation scenarios:  a combo traditional/cremation burial to one grave space,  multiple interments within one or paired spaces, and the above ground cremorial.

When selling interment rights on a preneed basis, it was once very common for cemeteries to include a forfeiture clause in the sales agreement.  If the consumer used installment payments to pay for a grave space and defaulted on that payment plan, the terms of the contract would declare all payments applied to the contract to have been forfeited.  The cemetery retained all payments and the consumer received nothing in exchange.  The forfeiture clause has long been a source of criticism against the cemetery industry, and it should be ditched.  Instead, cemeteries should allow defaulting consumers a credit that may be used against a future purchase of interment rights or at-need services.  The credit will serve as an inducement to the consumer to eventually return to the cemetery, even if for cremation scattering services.

In continuing with our last post about a cemetery preneed pivot, the cemetery operator seeking to improve its burial revenues can initiate a preneed program that first focuses on its existing lot owners.   To efficiently market to existing lot owners, the cemetery should use a questionnaire to reach out and learn the owners’ current preferences and whether steps have been taken towards funding a prearrangement.  As suggested in our previous post, the cemetery’s first priority should be owners that have already purchased a traditional funeral prearrangement from a funeral home.  Those owners have taken concrete steps towards their funeral plan, and now need to address the costs of the burial.

Running a close second in marketing priorities would be those lot owners who still want a traditional burial service but have not taken any steps towards funding their plan.  Following the lead set by the funeral industry, cemetery preneed marketing needs to educate the lot owners on the costs of the burial options.  Lot owners frequently assume that the opening/closing service is included with ownership of the grave.  Most consumers seriously underestimate the costs of a vault and a marker.

Cemeteries will also need a plan for working with funeral homes.  The cemetery’s questionnaire should seek the lot owner’s funeral home preference and whether he/she had had any discussions with that entity.  Lot owners that have not funded any type of funeral prearrangement contract pose a challenge because the lot owner will eventually need to address funding of the funeral costs.  If the cemetery costs are funded, but the funeral costs are unfunded, the Wirthlin reports suggest that any unfunded cost could play a major factor in a child’s decision on whether to cancel the burial funding and use the refund to pay for cremation services.  As funeral homes have found out, leaving one side of the prearrangement unfunded causes many families to unwind the funded side to pay for a cremation.  In that situation, the cemetery typically comes out on the short end of the stick.