A funeral home’s best efforts to comply with COVID-19 restrictions can be undermined when the body is delivered to the grave for burial.   While the funeral director has the authority to restrict attendance of a funeral service within his/her facilities, most funeral directors are powerless to restrict attendance at the gravesite.  When family and friends were denied the ability to enter the funeral home for giving their last respects, then there will likely be a greater demand to attend the burial.  The duty to enforce COVID-19 restrictions at the graveside belongs to the cemetery, not the funeral director.

In contrast to funeral home websites, most cemetery websites are silent about COVID-19 restrictions.  The International Cemetery, Crematory and Funeral Home Association offers some policy statements to cemeteries, but those policies are for the most part passive in nature.   The cemetery policy statement would cancel tours and programs but would not have the cemetery actively enforce attendance restrictions.  In contrast the city of Montreal and the Dioceses of Sacramento have taken proactive, but different, approaches to COVID-19 restrictions.

Montreal has implemented a policy that limits access to its city cemeteries by appointment only.  Burial services are limited to attendance by immediate family members, limited to 10 persons.  Physical distancing measures will still apply on attendees, requiring them to maintain a distance of two meters between themselves.  Cemeteries will be totally off-limits to visitors or people who wish to walk among the grounds.

The Diocese of Sacramento is not closing their cemeteries’ gates, but rather, is implementing strict rules at avoiding attendance at burials:

  • All Vigils, Funeral Masses and Weekly Saturday 10am Masses are suspended until further notice.
    • Only Immediate Graveside Burials will take place until further notice.
    • No family or guests are permitted to attend.
    • A Priest or Deacon, a funeral director/arranger and ground crew member will attend the committal.
    • Families will be notified after the committal has been completed.

Cities seeking to reduce their COVID-19 exposure should consider the Montreal approach for their city cemeteries.  Privately held cemeteries should discuss COVID-19 exposures with their liability insurance carrier.  If proactive measures are required, the Sacramento approach may be the least disruptive to business.

Jo Ann Howard & Associates, P.C., the receiver of National Prearranged Services, recently sent out a notice to funeral home providers that suggests to us that a settlement with PNC Bank may be in the offering.  The “Notice to Funeral Homes” advises that funeral homes will have until June 1st to provide documentation of losses on serviced NPS contracts, and that no loss claims will be accepted on contracts performed after May 1st.  This has prompted questions from funeral directors whether they can expect a recovery from the receiver.  That may depend on the nature of the settlement that has yet to be announced.  The Notice would seem to suggest that the settlement is imminent.

Missouri law, like most states’, restricts cemeteries to being either exclusively for human burials or for animal burials.   Accordingly, it has been illegal for Missouri cemeteries to honor a lot owner’s request to be buried with a pet.  However, legislation has been introduced that would authorize Missouri cemeteries for the burial of both humans and their pets.  HB 1652 would add a new definition to Missouri’s Cemetery Law:

(26) “Human and pet cemetery”, a tract of real estate separate from a cemetery, as defined in this section, in which both human remains and the remains of creatures other than human may be interred and memorialized at the discretion of the lot holder and subject to the rules of the human and pet cemetery. Burial space in a human and pet cemetery shall have the same meaning as defined in this section, but be applicable to pets as well as human dead. A human and pet cemetery shall be treated as a cemetery under sections 214.270 through 214.410 for purposes of licensing and endowed care. referred to as gardens.  The cemetery is required to plat the garden’s grave spaces, and record that

Cemeteries seeking new sources of revenue may see an opportunity in this legislation.  But that would depend upon whether a cemetery has land that could be dedicated for both human and pet burials.  Cemeteries are typically developed section by section, commonly plat at the county recorder of deeds with a dedication of restrictions.   Previously recorded cemetery plats would have been restricted to human burials for compliance with Chapter 214 of the Missouri law.  Accordingly, the phrase “a tract of real estate separate from a cemetery” would be problematic for a cemetery that has dedicated all of its land for human burials.  The cemetery cannot revise a garden plat once a human burial has been made to the garden.  So, to take advantage of this legislation, a Missouri cemetery would have to start with land that has not been previously dedicated.


Fall is the time when many cemeteries host their most effective marketing program: voices from the past.

In conjunction with a local community theater, the cemetery will research their “residents” for interesting characters to portray.  The community theater actors will then bring those characters to life during a tour of the cemetery.   These tours generate revenues for the care of the cemetery, but more importantly, bring live residents who may not have family buried at the cemetery.  The tour reinforces for first time visitors the purpose of memorializing a life.

One of my favorite tours is sponsored by Valhalla Cemetery in St. Louis.   In contrast to many Voices tours, Valhalla provides a hay ride to visit the different grave locations.  Another local favorite is sponsored by the Union Cemetery Historical Society of Kansas City.   Union Cemetery is one of Kansas City’s oldest cemeteries, and is rich with history.  A little closer to my home is the Voices of Olathe City Cemetery.

The cemetery is not dying, it is evolving.

Since its creation in the 1830’s, America’s public cemetery has gone through three major evolutions.  When American was an agrarian society, we buried our dead in a small section of the family farm.  As towns grew into cities, the public cemetery was created out of necessity.  Located within the core of a city, the urban cemetery served a single utilitarian purpose of burying the dead.  Within a couple of decades, urban cemeteries began to run out of space.  In response to cemetery overcrowding and health risks, New York State passed the Rural Cemetery Act.  The Rural Cemetery Act forced new cemeteries to locate on the outer fringes of cities, and opened the door to cemeteries becoming a commercial business.  The Rural Cemetery Act also set the stage for an American cemetery that would thrive for more than a century: the memorial park.

The memorial park represents the golden age for cemeteries.  A memorial park would be established on an expansive tract of land that included rolling hills, abundant trees and a lake or pond.  This type of cemetery served as a destination for families who would spend a Sunday afternoon picnicking at the resting place of relatives.  (This article includes pictures that reflect a societal perception of cemeteries.)   But memorial parks began to lose public appeal as cities began to build municipal parks.  (See “Our First Public Parks: The Forgotten History of Cemeteries”.)

By the middle of the Twentieth Century, cemetery developers left the memorial park model for the new lawn garden model.  Lawn garden cemeteries emphasized a flat and open tree-less contour.   Lawn garden cemeteries proved more profitable to operators because they were less expensive to develop and maintain.  More grave spaces could be developed per acre of land, and flat surface memorials allowed large tractor mowers to be used.  But after several decades of prominence, the lawn garden cemetery is now threaten by cremation.

As reported by the Detroit Free Press, an increasing number of cemeteries are making another pivot in response to rising cremation rates.   Metro Detroit cemeteries are attempting to capitalize on their memorial park roots by converting underutilized grounds into small cremation gardens.  Working with compact areas of the cemetery, they are developing walking paths, memorial benches, and memorial fountains.    Several of the cemeteries are owned by Park Lawn, a Canadian death care conglomerate that has the resources to invest in new cremation gardens.  But for smaller cemeteries, a half million dollar capital expenditure may be out of reach.  So, we will use future posts to highlight how small cemeteries are making the cremation pivot.

It would be my assumption that the majority of the country’s cemeteries do not maintain a trust for the maintenance and care of its graves.  While this may differ from state to state, most states’ perpetual care statutes exempt small family cemeteries, not for profit cemeteries, municipal cemeteries, county cemeteries and church cemeteries from their care trust requirement.  Consequently, there may be tens of thousands of cemeteries that will be dependent upon volunteers to mow the grass after the last grave has been sold.

In the absence of a cemetery trust fund, it was once very common for a family to set aside a few thousand dollars in a grantor care trust to provide income for flowers and maintenance of that family’s grave spaces.  Today, banks are very reluctant to establish, or accept transfer of, grantor care funds.  For the past several years, small trusts’ expenses have exceeded income.  Trustee fees often consume the first 1% of the trust’s income. Then, there are tax preparation expenses.  Grantor care trusts are subject to the same tax reporting requirements as the cemetery care fund trust (a Section 642i return).  The Section 642i return is a hybrid type of complex 1041 that  typically requires the bank to engage an outside tax preparer.  Tax prep fees for a cemetery care trust can run from $250 to $500.  For a $10,000 grantor care fund, the lowest tax prep fee would consume the next 2.5% of trust income.  Accordingly, the $10,000 grantor care trust must earn 3.5% before a dollar can be distributed for the care of the family’s graves.

Funeral preneed trusts face similar expense hurdles, but state funeral director associations developed master trusts to achieve diversification and economies of scale.   In consolidating funeral accounts, the association master trust reduced administrative expenses and gained the critical mass needed to diversify investments.

But, the master trust concept has not gained much traction with state cemetery associations.  That has forced a few death care fiduciaries to piece together cemetery master trusts with small accounts.  Until a grantor care trust has the opportunity to join one of those master trusts, the family’s graves will not see flowers anytime soon.

We had hoped that the Trial Court’s Finding of Facts would shed some light on how a Missouri preneed trust holding life insurance would have income to distribute.  Despite being invested primarily in life insurance policies, Allegiant Bank made monthly income distributions to NPS.  The Trial Court made several findings on how Allegiant Bank failed to comply with R.S.Mo. Section 436.031.3, but there is no mention whether Allegiant Bank complied with the realized income requirement.

There are three elements of the Section 436.031 income distribution: the trust’s market value, aggregate deposit balance and realized income. When responding to a Section 436.031 income distribution, the preneed trustee should maintain documentation reflecting the then current deposit balance, market value and accrued income.  (This feature of Missouri’s old preneed law remains relevant because it continues to govern preneed contracts sold prior to September 2009.  Consequently, some Missouri funeral homes continue to seek income distributions from their preneed trusts.)  The Trial Court found that when Allegiant Bank made income distributions to NPS, they breached its fiduciary duties to consumers by neither confirming the trust’s aggregate deposit balance or the value of the trust’s assets.

One common mistake made by Missouri trustees was to use the trust’s principal amount in lieu of aggregate deposit balance.  But, the Trial Court found that Allegiant didn’t even bother to use the trust’s principal in a test for compliance with the law.  The Trial Court acknowledges that the trustee is dependent upon the preneed seller for the trust’s aggregate deposit balance.  While NPS provided monthly packets of reports, Allegiant made no record of any effort to reconcile the trust’s deposits and market value.

The NPS trusts were invested primarily in life insurance and debentures.  Allegiant relied upon the face amount of the life insurance, without confirming whether the policies were paid up.    Nor did Allegiant make any efforts to confirm the value of the debentures.

With regard to ‘realized income requirement’, we find a single finding related to that issue.  Finding No. 684 indicates that Missouri bank examiners concluded that “since September 23, 1998, approximately $47M has been distributed from income cash to the Seller.”   What!  Didn’t anyone challenge how the trust earned $47,000,000 of income?

Click here to view excerpts from the Finding of Facts that relate to income distributions.

“Allegiant [Bank] violated the industry standard of care by not maintaining consumer-level deposit records, because, as here, where there are multiple beneficiaries of a trust, the trustee must keep records of the individual deposits made for each consumer.”

This finding by the trial court in the NPS civil trial had to come as a shock to Allegiant Bank, and would probably come as a surprise to many preneed trustees.  With regard to the trustee’s recordkeeping requirements, both the NPS trust agreement[1] and applicable Missouri state preneed laws[2] incorporated typical industry standards. The Allegiant Bank trust officer believed that the records produced by the bank’s trust accounting system would suffice for compliance with the trust agreement and Missouri law.

During its 6 year term as the NPS trustee, Allegiant Bank did not request or maintain records of the deposit balances of the individual contract beneficiaries.  Allegiant Bank assumed that it could rely upon NPS to provide individual deposit balances upon request.  The trust officer believed he was not required by either the trust agreement or Missouri law to keep specific customer account information.  The trial court disagreed, finding that though Missouri law imposes a duty on the preneed seller to create a record of consumer payments and deposits, the statute does not abrogate the trustee’s duty to maintain records of deposits to the trust after that information is obtained from the seller.

The trial court reasoned that without keeping records of the deposit activity, the trustee could not reconcile trust transactions to determine if distribution requests were accurate.  The trial court did not find that the trustee has to create such individual consumer deposit records, but rather the trustee must seek such records from the seller and then keep them for purposes of reconciliation of distributions.

Click this hyperlink to view excerpts from the Findings of Fact and Law that discuss the individual deposit recordkeeping requirement.







[1] . Section 4.3 of the Trust Agreement stated: “Trustee shall at all times maintain accurate books and records reflecting all transactions in any way pertaining to the trust.”

[2] The first sentence of Section 436.031.5 read, “The Trustee of a preneed trust shall maintain adequate books of accounts of all transactions administered through the trust and pertaining to the trust generally.”

  • It is inevitable that a cemetery will run out of graves (and revenues) and eventually become the ward of taxpayers.
  • For cemeteries with ample inventory of graves, the public’s embrace of cremation translates to declining grave sales and the acceleration of the cemetery’s demise.

For several years, the media have been making these dire predictions about cemeteries.  If accurate, it can only be a matter of time before cities, towns, counties and townships are required to step in and take charge of each cemetery that lies within their boundaries.  But, municipalities are pushing back and creating  a different narrative that suggests there are alternative paths for cemeteries.  Municipalities are advising that they are poorly suited to operating a cemetery because they lack the expertise and personnel to run a cemetery efficiently.  Rather than waste tax payer funds, municipalities are exploring joint enterprises, special committees and even the privatization of cemeteries.  We offer Glendale Memorial Park as an example of the latter.

Glendale Memorial Park “failed’ in 1962, and the city of Glendale Arizona stepped in to assume control and operation of the cemetery.  The cemetery did not have a care fund trust.  The City operated the cemetery for 23 years before implementing an ordinance requiring grave sale revenue to be deposited to a care fund trust.  For the next 15 years, the cemetery accrued all income to the trust.  Eventually, the cemetery’s care fund grew to $4.5 million and the City began to apply grave sale proceeds and the care fund interest income to the cemetery’s upkeep.  Despite a very healthy care fund, the cemetery began operating at a deficit and the City hired consultants in 2018 for advice.

The consultants provided two recommendations: make significant investments in columbariums and staffing, or sell the cemetery to a private death care firm with the expertise to properly operate the cemetery.   The consultant’s recommendations reflect the reality all cemetery operators face:  adjustments and investments must be made for a clientele that wants cremation and memorialization.  If you are unable or unwilling to adapt to cremation, then you better sell the cemetery.

For the reasons stated in the attached report, the City of Glendale chose to sell the cemetery rather than make the recommended investments.  Reading between the lines of that report, we can also predict some of the buyer’s motivations.

  • The buyer negotiated for $3.8 million of the cemetery’s care fund. The City likely directed the care funds into very conservative investments.  The buyer understood that with diversified investments, the fund could generate a greater return and offset more of the maintenance costs.
  • The cemetery had been operated by the City for 55 years without a proactive sales program. That would mean that the majority of living lot owners probably have not purchased merchandise such as markers, vaults or urns.  The cemetery’s lot book would provide a reliable lead list for marketing merchandise sales.
  • The cemetery probably has sections that could be re-developed for cremain interments or scattering gardens.
  • The purchase prices of interment spaces were probably below “market”.  The buyer could generate higher revenues by simply raising prices to those charged by competing cemeteries.
  • The cemetery may also have had facilities that could be used for other revenue generating purposes (life celebration events or memorials).
  • If the cemetery had acreage that had not been platted and dedicated, that land could be sold for other commercial purposes.

Depending on the facts and circumstances, municipalities may look to explore the ‘privatization’ alternative.  But, municipalities need to perform due diligence on each prospective buyer.  Selling a cemetery to an inexperienced or under financed death care firm could work to exasperate the cemetery’s condition.  The municipality could be forced to take over the cemetery again, with a condition worse than when it was ‘privatized’.

In subsequent posts, we will look at how some municipalities are taking proactive steps to keep a cemetery viable (and thus avoid it becoming abandoned).

PNC Bank has been hit with $15 million of punitive damages because Allegiant Bank did not know its client.

Before opening a fiduciary account, banks are required to perform due diligence on the trust’s grantor and on the trust’s purposes.   Such due diligence is referred to as ‘know your client’ or “KYC”.  KYC requirements had been in the works prior to 9/11, but the terrorist attacks provided the political momentum needed to pass the Patriot Act.  For preneed trusts, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency had issued due diligence guidelines in April 2000.  The OCC memorandum warned that preneed trusts posed unique risks to banks, and that a preneed trust should be accepted only after due diligence reviews of the funeral company and the applicable state preneed laws.

In a March 2015 post (NPS Trustees: Pre-acceptance Due Diligence), we discussed the legal arguments made that Allegiant Bank had breach its fiduciary duty by accepting the NPS trusts without adequate due diligence of NPS and Chapter 436.  Although we did not know the facts and circumstances of Allegiant Bank coming to be the NPS trustee, one SDR argument carried the most weight: Allegiant Bank failed to properly comprehend Chapter 436.  Four years late, the Trial Court cites that argument as its basis for awarding punitive damages.

We learn through the Judgment’s Finding of Facts that Allegiant Bank courted NPS with a list of hand written questions prepared by Herbert Morisse, the bank’s only trust officer.  While Mr. Morisse had 17 years’ experience as an estate planning attorney, he only had 2 and half years’ experience in administering trusts.  The NPS trusts would represent the first preneed trusts under his supervision.  (See Pages 17 through 22 of the Judgment.)  Despite his lack of experience with Missouri’s preneed law, Mr. Morisse did not seek assistance from Allegiant Bank’s outside legal counsel.  Instead, Mr. Morisse sought to ‘familiarized himself’ with the Missouri law and define the due diligence to be conducted.

The Court found Mr. Morisse made several critical erroneous interpretations of Chapter 436, the Missouri preneed law.  Mr. Morisse failed to recognize that NPS associate funeral homes and individual preneed contract purchasers were beneficiaries to the NPS trusts.  Mr. Morisse also erroneously applied the Missouri law to allow the income distributions from the NPS trusts.  But worse of all, Mr. Morisse interpreted Section 436.031 to hold the preneed trustee harmless from any investment made by an outside investment advisor.

In a discussion starting on Page 284, the Court states that the decision is not about the vilification of Mr. Morisse, but rather an indictment of the institutional failure of Allegiant Bank to understand the requirements of a Missouri preneed trust.

As discussed in our 2015 post, the OCC’s preneed trust guidelines have been modified since April 2000, and are now part of the Personal Fiduciary Activities Handbook (Page 67).  The guidelines recognize that the preneed trustee is dependent upon the funeral company for individual consumer account information that will be used for performance and cancellation distributions.  Consequently, the OCC also refers banks to OCC Bulletin 2013-29 (additional requirements for assessing and managing risks inherent to third party funeral home relationships).  Thanks in part to NPS, banks have a KYC obligation to periodically assess the risk posed by the preneed trust:

  • Are the parties’ respective responsibilities and duties clearly outlined in the governing documents?
  • Does the funeral home provide periodic reports sufficient to reconcile deposit and distribution requests to consumer account balances?
  • Does the bank document periodic efforts taken towards oversight, accountability, monitoring and risk management?