2003 Senate Bill 512 - Michigan Votes

Legislation watch

2003 Senate Bill 512

Public Act 21 of 2004

[Comments on this legislation] [Post new comment] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Sen. Laura Toy (R) on May 21, 2003, to expand the scope of a law which regulates the sale of pre-need funeral and burial contracts sold by funeral homes to cover the same product when sold by cemeteries. The funeral home law requires payments on the contracts to be placed in a trust fund, and 90 percent of the amount to be returned to the customer if he or she changes their mind. Certain pre-need contracts with cemeteries are covered by different regulations which are less stringent.
- Referred to the Senate Local, Urban, & State Affairs Committee on May 21, 2003.
- Reported in the Senate on June 3, 2003, with the recommendation that the bill pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on June 18, 2003, to replace the previous version of the bill with one recommended by the committee which reported it. The substitute incorporates technical changes resulting from committee testimony and deliberation. These changes do not affect the substance of the bill as previously described. The substitute passed in the Senate by voice vote on June 18, 2003.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Ron Jelinek (R) on June 19, 2003, to prohibit the cancellation or refund of a prepaid funeral contract after the death of the contract beneficiary unless there are no remains of the beneficiary, or if the remains cannot be recovered. Contracts could be upgraded on behalf of the contract beneficiary's estate or by a person entitled to make funeral or cemetery arrangements, and the contract could be transferred to another provider. The amendment passed in the Senate by voice vote on June 19, 2003.
Passed in the Senate (36 to 0) on June 19, 2003. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on June 19, 2003.
- Referred to the House Commerce Committee on June 19, 2003.
  - Reported in the House on February 10, 2004, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-2) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on February 12, 2004, to replace the previous version of the bill with one recommended by the committee which reported it but superceded by the Accavitti substitute. See Accavitti substitute for details. The substitute failed in the House by voice vote on February 12, 2004.
- Substitute offered by Rep. Frank Accavitti, Jr. (D) on February 12, 2004, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that has higher trust fund requirements on prepaid contracts for funeral merchandise, funeral services, and cemetery services than on contracts for cemetery merchandise. The substitute also establishes different refund requirements and revises other details of the proposed regulations. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on February 12, 2004.
- Amendment offered by Rep. David Palsrok (R) on February 12, 2004, to clarify a technical changes in definitions abd requirements contained in the bill, and correct drafting errors. The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on February 12, 2004.
Passed in the House (99 to 2) on February 12, 2004, to expand the scope of a law which regulates the sale of pre-need funeral and burial contracts sold by funeral homes to cover the same product when sold by cemeteries. The funeral home law currently requires payments on the contracts to be placed in a trust fund, and 90 percent of the amount to be returned to the customer if he or she changes their mind. Certain pre-need contracts with cemeteries are covered by different regulations which are less stringent. The bill would impose more stringent regulations on cemetery pre-need contracts. It requires that 80 percent of the amount paid for a cemetery merchandise contract be held in escrow, and escrow amounts of 100 percent for funeral merchandise, funeral services, and cemetery services. The bill would require 100 percent refunds plus a cost-of-living increase for certain items covered in the contracts, but not others. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on February 17, 2004.
Passed in the Senate (37 to 0) on February 18, 2004, to concur with the House-passed version of the bill, which made substantive changes to the Senate-passed bill. See House-passed bill for details. [Vote Details and Comments]
Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on March 9, 2004.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) Huge step for consumers [by Anonymous Citizen on April 10, 2004]
Contrary to the grumps on this site, these bills are a hugh step forward in consumer protection.

It now requires all sellers of funeral goods to trust the money they take in. Simply put, the money is still the consumers money until the delivery of goods a the time of death. Cemeteries have raked in tens of thousands of dollars over the years leaving consumers high and dry when they changed their mind or had second thoughts about their "purchases".

Brining everyone up to the level that funeral directors must trust helps everyone and "levels the playing field" by bringing cemeteries up to the standards of funeral directors. For years they have been trying to lower the standards to "compete". Now if consumers choose the goods offered by fast talking cemetery sales reps, they will be protected under Michigan law.

This is a huge step forward for everyone!
Reply

Line

2) Protection Racket State at Work [by Anonymous Citizen on February 16, 2004]
Don't trust either the funeral or the cemetery people on this. Most of all, don't trust the politicians, who are laughing all the way to the bank. Here's the game, the name of which is "the protection racket state":
In the name of "protecting the public" they allow each group to write licensure and regulation laws for their industry that freeze out potential competitors, allowing existing firms to milk the public decade after decade. Then each group gets its pet lawmakers to introduce bills screwing the other side by tinkering with the regulations. This sets up a tremendous game for lawmakers, who take money from both sides with the usual result being that nothing happens.
Occasionally the balance is upset and a bill actually gets passed, the only sure outcome of which is that the public will pay even more, and one side or the other gets a relatively bigger piece of the loot.
Which side is the winner on this bill? Who knows, and who cares? - you can't trust a word that comes from either. The only thing you can be sure of is that the public will get screwed - again.
Reply

Line

3) Everybody Knows! [by Anonymous Citizen on February 15, 2004]
Everybody knows Senator Toy introduced this bill to protect the turf of her Friends the Funeral Directors. Senator Toy owns a thriving Florist Shop and does thousands of dollars in business with the local Funeral Businesses including a home owned by the head of the Michigan Funeral Directors Association. Thank goodness Representatives Bisbee, Palsrok, and Accavitti recognized this self serving legislation for what it was and corrected it so that Michigan Consumers were truly protected. Obviously, their fellow house members agreed look at the vote that was cast.
Reply

Line

View Full Conversation