XML 152 R16.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.8

Note 9: Reinsurance, Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2013
Notes |
Note 9: Reinsurance, Commitments and Contingencies | 9) Reinsurance, Commitments and Contingencies Reinsurance The Company follows the procedure of reinsuring risks in excess of a specified limit, which ranged from $25,000 to $100,000 during the years 2013 and 2012. The Company is liable for these amounts in the event such reinsurers are unable to pay their portion of the claims. The Company has also assumed insurance from other companies having insurance in force amounting to approximately $1,566,336,000 (unaudited) at December 31, 2013 and approximately $1,665,573,000 (unaudited) at December 31, 2012. Reinsurance with Mothe Life Insurance Company and DLE Life Insurance Company On December 19, 2012, the Company, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Security National Life, entered into a Coinsurance Agreement with Mothe Life Insurance Company, a Louisiana domiciled insurance company, and a subsidiary, DLE Life Insurance Company, also a Louisiana domiciled life insurance company (collectively referred to as “Mothe Life”). The effective date of the Coinsurance Agreement was November 1, 2012. Under the terms of the Coinsurance Agreement, Security National Life agreed to reinsure certain insurance policies of Mothe Life in exchange for the settlement amount of $34,485,000. In addition, the Coinsurance Agreement provides that effective November 1, 2012, Mothe Life ceded and transferred to Security National Life, and Security National Life accepted and coinsured all of Mothe Life’s contractual liabilities under the coinsured policies by means of indemnity reinsurance. On December 18, 2012, the Louisiana Department of Insurance approved the Coinsurance Agreement. The Coinsurance Agreement further provides that on and after the effective date of November 1, 2012, Security National Life is entitled to exercise all contractual rights of Mothe Life under the coinsured policies in accordance with the terms and provisions of such policies. Moreover, after the closing date of December 19, 2012, the Company agreed to be responsible for all the contractual liabilities under the coinsured policies, including the administration of the coinsured policies at its sole expense in accordance with the terms and conditions of a Service Agreement between Security National Life and Mothe Life. Pursuant to the terms of the Coinsurance Agreement, Security National Life paid a ceding commission to Mothe Life in the amount of $4,684,000. As a result of the ceding commission, Mothe Life transferred $34,485,000 in assets and $39,169,000 in statutory reserves, or liabilities, to Security National Life. Reinsurance Terminated with North America Life Insurance Company On December 1, 2013, in accordance with the terms of the Coinsurance Agreement, Security National Life, through TransWestern Life Insurance Company (“Trans-Western Life”), recaptured additional policies of Trans-Western Life from North American Life Insurance Company (“North American Life”). On December 10, 2013, pursuant to the Coinsurance Agreement, North America Life paid $2,500,000, less a ceding commission of $34,000 to Security National Life. On February 13, 2014, in accordance with the terms of the Coinsurance Agreement, Security National Life, through Trans Western Life, recaptured the remaining policies of Trans-Western Life from North American Life. Pursuant to the Coinsurance Agreement, North America Life paid $4,684,000 less a ceding commission of $57,000 to Security National Life, and the Reinsurance Agreement between Trans Western Life and North America Life was terminated. Mortgage Loan Loss Settlements The mortgage industry has seen potential loan losses increase. Future loan losses are extremely difficult to estimate, especially in the current market. However, management believes that the Company’s reserve methodology and its current practice of property preservation allow it to estimate its losses on loans sold. The amounts accrued for loan losses in years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 were $1,846,000 and $4,053,000, respectively. The estimated liability for indemnification losses is included in other liabilities and accrued expenses and, as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, the balances were $5,507,000 and $6,035,000, respectively. Settlement with Wells Fargo On April 7, 2011, SecurityNational Mortgage entered into a settlement agreement with Wells Fargo Funding, Inc. (“Wells Fargo Funding”). The settlement agreement provides that it is intended to be a pragmatic commercial accommodation between SecurityNational Mortgage and Wells Fargo Funding and is not to be construed as an admission of responsibility, liability or fault for either party’s claims. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, SecurityNational Mortgage paid an initial settlement amount to Wells Fargo Funding in the amount of $4,300,000. SecurityNational Mortgage is also required under the settlement agreement to set aside 10 basis points (.0010) during the period from April 8, 2011 to March 31, 2017 from the purchase proceeds of any loans that it sells to any mortgage loan purchaser, including Wells Fargo Funding, and pay such amounts to Wells Fargo Funding. SecurityNational Mortgage is additionally required under the settlement agreement to set aside 50% from the net proceeds that it receives from any sale, liquidation or other transfer of certain real estate properties that it owns, after subtracting taxes, commissions, recording fees and other transaction costs. These real estate properties consist of 27 real estate properties with a total book value as of December 31, 2013 of $4,735,000. In consideration for SecurityNational Mortgage making the initial settlement payment to Wells Fargo Funding, Wells Fargo Funding and related parties, including Wells Fargo Bank, released SecurityNational Mortgage and related parties, including the Company and Security National Life, from any claims, demands, damages, obligations, liabilities, or causes of action relating to residential mortgage loans that Wells Fargo Funding purchased from SecurityNational Mortgage prior to December 31, 2009. Similarly, SecurityNational Mortgage released Wells Fargo Funding and its related parties from any claims, demands, damages, obligations, liabilities, or causes of actions relating to residential mortgage loans that Wells Fargo Funding purchased from SecurityNational Mortgage prior to December 31, 2009. Mortgage Loan Loss Demands Third Party Investors There have been assertions in third party investor correspondence that SecurityNational Mortgage sold mortgage loans that allegedly contained borrower misrepresentations or experienced early payment defaults, or that were otherwise allegedly defective or not in compliance with agreements between SecurityNational Mortgage and the third party investors consisting principally of financial institutions. As a result of these claims, third party investors have made demands that SecurityNational Mortgage repurchase certain alleged defective mortgage loans that were sold to such investors or indemnify them against any losses related to such loans. The total amount of potential claims by third party investors is difficult to determine. The Company has reserved and accrued $5,502,000 and $6,035,000 as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively, to settle all such investor related claims. The Company believes that the reserve for mortgage loan loss, which includes provisions for probable losses and indemnification on mortgage loans sold to investors, is reasonable based on available information. Moreover, the Company has successfully negotiated acceptable settlement terms with other third party investors that asserted claims for mortgage loan losses against the Company. The Company disagrees with the repurchase demands and notices of potential claims from third party investors and believes it has significant defenses to these demands. If SecurityNational Mortgage is unable to resolve the alleged claims by the third party investors on acceptable terms, legal action may ensue. In the event of legal action, if SecurityNational Mortgage is not successful in its defenses against claims asserted by these third party investors to the extent that a substantial judgment is entered against SecurityNational Mortgage which is beyond its capacity to pay, SecurityNational Mortgage may be required to curtail or cease operations. JP Morgan Chase Indemnification Demand The Company and its wholly owned subsidiary, SecurityNational Mortgage, received a notice of claim for indemnification dated December 21, 2011, from JP Morgan Chase & Co. (“JP Morgan Chase”) on behalf of EMC Mortgage, LLC (“EMC Mortgage”), relating to 21 mortgage loans that EMC Mortgage allegedly purchased as a third party investor from SecurityNational Mortgage. The notice also referenced a guaranty agreement, dated February 23, 2006, by the Company for the benefit of EMC Mortgage. The indemnification notice additionally stated that EMC Mortgage had been named in a lawsuit by the Bear Stearns Mortgage Funding Trust 2007-AR2 (the “Trust”), which was filed on September 13, 2011 in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The lawsuit the Trust brought against EMC Mortgage contends that more than 800 residential mortgage loans that EMC Mortgage sold to the Trust (including the 21 loans allegedly originated by SecurityNational Mortgage) contained breaches of representations and warranties with respect to the mortgage loans, as well as defaults and foreclosures in many of such loans. As a result of the alleged breaches of representations and warranties by EMC Mortgage, the complaint requests that EMC Mortgage be ordered to repurchase from the Trust any loans for which it breached its representations and warranties, in the amount of the mortgage loans’ outstanding principal balance and all accrued but unpaid interest. The indemnification notice from JP Morgan Chase further alleged that the Company and SecurityNational Mortgage are required to indemnify EMC Mortgage for any of its losses arising from the lawsuit that the Trust brought against EMC based upon allegedly untrue statements of material fact related to information that was provided by SecurityNational Mortgage. To the extent the claims in the complaint relate to the 21 mortgage loans that SecurityNational Mortgage allegedly sold to EMC Mortgage, the Company believes it has significant defenses to such claims. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself and SecurityNational Mortgage in the event that JP Morgan Chase were to bring any legal action to require the Company or SecurityNational Mortgage to indemnify it for any loss, liability or expense in connection with the lawsuit that the Trust has brought against EMC Mortgage. Mortgage Loan Loss Litigation Lehman Brothers - Aurora Loan Services Litigation On April 15, 2005, SecurityNational Mortgage entered into a loan purchase agreement with Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB (“Lehman Bank”). Under the terms of the loan purchase agreement, Lehman Bank agreed to purchase mortgage loans from time to time from SecurityNational Mortgage. During 2007, Lehman Bank and its wholly owned subsidiary, Aurora Loan Services LLC (“Aurora Loan Services”), purchased a total of 1,490 mortgage loans in the aggregate amount of $352,774,000 from SecurityNational Mortgage. Lehman Bank asserted that certain of the mortgage loans that it purchased from SecurityNational Mortgage during 2007 contained alleged misrepresentations and early payment defaults. As a result of these alleged breaches in the mortgage loans, Lehman Bank contended it had the right to require SecurityNational Mortgage to repurchase certain loans or be liable for losses related to such loans under the loan purchase agreement. SecurityNational Mortgage disagrees with these claims. On December 17, 2007, SecurityNational Mortgage entered into an Indemnification Agreement with Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services. Under the terms of the Indemnification Agreement, SecurityNational Mortgage agreed to indemnify Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services for 75% of all losses that Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services may incur relative to breaches by mortgagors pertaining to 55 mortgage loans that were purchased from SecurityNational Mortgage. SecurityNational Mortgage was released from any obligation to pay the remaining 25% of such losses. The Indemnification Agreement also required SecurityNational Mortgage to indemnify Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services for 100% of any future losses incurred on mortgage loans with breaches that were not among the 55 mortgage loans. Pursuant to the Indemnification Agreement, SecurityNational Mortgage paid $395,000 to Aurora Loan Services as a deposit into a reserve account, to secure any obligations of SecurityNational Mortgage under the Indemnification Agreement. This deposit was in addition to a $250,000 deposit that SecurityNational Mortgage previously made into the reserve account for a total of $645,000. Losses from mortgage loans with alleged breaches were payable from the reserve account. However, Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services were not to apply any funds from the reserve account to a particular mortgage loan until an actual loss had occurred. Under the Indemnification Agreement SecurityNational Mortgage was to pay to Aurora Loan Services each calendar month the difference between the reserve account balance and $645,000, but in no event would SecurityNational Mortgage be required to make payments into the reserve account in excess of $125,000 for any calendar month. Since the reserve account was established, funds had been paid from the account to indemnify $4,281,000 in alleged losses from 31 mortgage loans that were among 55 mortgage loans with alleged breaches that were covered by the Indemnification Agreement and ten other mortgage loans with alleged breaches. In the last monthly billing statement dated April 24, 2011 to SecurityNational Mortgage, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“Lehman Holdings”) claimed that SecurityNational Mortgage owed approximately $3,745,000 for mortgage loan losses under the Indemnification Agreement. During 2010 and 2011, the Company recognized alleged losses of $1,289,000 and $-0-, respectively. However, management cannot fully determine the total losses because there may be potential claims for losses that have not yet been determined. As of December 31, 2013, the Company had not accrued for any losses under the Indemnification Agreement. SecurityNational Mortgage was involved in discussions with Lehman Bank and Lehman Holdings concerning issues under the Indemnification Agreement. During the discussion period, monthly payments for December 2010 and January, February, March and April of 2011 totaling $625,000 were abated or deferred. On May 11, 2011, SecurityNational Mortgage filed a complaint against Aurora Bank FSB, formerly known as Lehman Bank, and Aurora Loan Services in the United States District Court for the District of Utah because it had been unable to resolve certain issues under the Indemnification Agreement. The complaint alleges, among other things, material breach of the Indemnification Agreement, including a claim that neither Lehman Bank nor Aurora Loan Services owned mortgage loans sold by SecurityNational Mortgage to justify the amount of payments demanded from, and made by SecurityNational Mortgage. As a result, SecurityNational Mortgage claims it is entitled to judgment of approximately $4,000,000 against Lehman Bank, as well as Aurora Loan Services to the extent of its involvement and complicity with Lehman Bank. The complaint also alleges a second claim for material breach of a section of the Indemnification Agreement that contains an alleged “sunset” provision and that the amount of the requested payments made was not justified under the “sunset” provision. On June 8, 2011, Lehman Holdings, which had filed for bankruptcy in September 2008, filed a complaint against SecurityNational Mortgage in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. A Lehman Holdings’ subsidiary owns Lehman Bank. The complaint alleges that SecurityNational Mortgage sold loans to Lehman Bank, which were then sold to Lehman Holdings. The complaint additionally alleges that Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services assigned their rights and remedies under the loan purchase agreement, as well as the Indemnification Agreement to Lehman Holdings, which latter assignment purportedly took place on March 28, 2011. Lehman Holdings declared in a letter dated June 2, 2011 that the Indemnification Agreement was null and void except for losses previously released and discharged, which is disputed by SecurityNational Mortgage. Lehman Holdings’ alleged claims are for damages for breach of contract and breach of warranty pursuant to a loan purchase agreement and Seller’s Guide. Based on claiming that the Indemnification Agreement is null and void pursuant to its lawsuit, Lehman Holdings has initially claimed damages in excess of $5,000,000. Prior to declaring the Indemnification Agreement null and void, Lehman Holdings claimed in a then recent billing statement under the terms of the Indemnification Agreement, that SecurityNational Mortgage owed approximately $3,745,000 for mortgage loan losses under the Indemnification Agreement. SecurityNational Mortgage strongly disagrees with the position of Lehman Holdings and, as set forth in its May 11, 2011 complaint, seeks affirmative relief of approximately $4,000,000 from Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services, which are related to Lehman Holdings. On September 4, 2012, SecurityNational Mortgage filed a motion for summary judgment in its action against Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services on certain material issues, as well as against Lehman Holdings regarding its claims against SecurityNational Mortgage. Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services filed a cross motion for summary judgment as to the issues in SecurityNational Mortgage’s motion and, in the Lehman Holdings case, Lehman Holdings has requested that the Court allow a cross motion on the issues which are the subject of SecurityNational Mortgage’s September 4, 2012 motion. The cases are before two different federal judges. On February 27, 2013, SecurityNational Mortgage’s motion for summary judgment against Lehman Bank and Aurora Loan Services and the related cross motion were heard by Judge David Nuffer of the United States District Court for the District of Utah. After an extensive hearing, Judge Nuffer requested that the parties prepare findings of fact in accordance with the Court’s earlier promulgated findings as modified at the hearing, and that each party submit proposed conclusions of law related to the motions. Judge Nuffer also said that he may request a further hearing on the matter. The motion and cross motion are under advisement. SecurityNational Mortgage’s motion in the Lehman Holdings case has been reset for hearing on April 22, 2014 before Judge Ted Stewart of the United States District Court for the District of Utah, with a trial, as may be necessary, set for August 11, 2014. Non-Cancelable Leases The Company leases office space and equipment under various non-cancelable agreements, with remaining terms up to five years. Minimum lease payments under these non-cancelable operating leases as of December 31, 2013, are approximately as follows:
Years Ending |
December 31 |
2014 | 3,104,498
2015 | 2,444,254
2016 | 1,758,888
2017 | 1,326,789
2018 | 241,697
Total | $ 8,876,126
Total rent expense related to non-cancelable operating leases for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011 was approximately $4,307,000, $3,425,000, and $2,595,000, respectively. Other Contingencies and Commitments The Company has entered into commitments to fund new residential construction loans. As of December 31, 2013, the Company’s commitments were $18,000,000, for these loans of which $12,912,000 had been funded. The Company will advance funds once the work has been completed and an independent inspection is made. The maximum loan commitment ranges between 50% and 80% of appraised value. The Company receives fees from the borrowers and the interest rate is generally 2% to 6.75% over the bank prime rate (3.25% as of December 31, 2013). Maturities range between six and twelve months. At December 31, 2013, SecurityNational Mortgage was contingently liable under a standby letter of credit aggregating $1,250,000, to be used as collateral to cover any contingency relating to claims filed in states where SecurityNational Mortgage is licensed. The Company does not expect any material losses to result from the issuance of the standby letter of credit. Accordingly, the estimated fair value of these instruments is zero. At December 31, 2013, the Company was contingently liable under a standby letter of credit aggregating $641,001, to be used as collateral to cover any contingency related to additional risk assessments pertaining to the Company's captive insurance program. The Company does not expect any material losses to result from the issuance of the standby letter of credit because claims are not expected to exceed premiums paid. Accordingly, the estimated fair value of these instruments is zero. At December 31, 2013, the Company was contingently liable under two standby letters of credit aggregating $139,220, issued as security deposits to guarantee payment of final bills for electric and gas utility services for a commercial real estate property owned by the Company in Wichita, Kansas. The Company belongs to a captive insurance group for certain casualty insurance, worker compensation and liability programs. Insurance reserves are maintained relative to these programs. The level of exposure from catastrophic events is limited by the purchase of stop-loss and aggregate liability reinsurance coverage. When estimating the insurance liabilities and related reserves, the captive insurance management considers a number of factors, which include historical claims experience, demographic factors, severity factors and valuations provided by independent third-party actuaries. If actual claims or adverse development of loss reserves occurs and exceed these estimates, additional reserves may be required. The estimation process contains uncertainty since captive insurance management must use judgment to estimate the ultimate cost that will be incurred to settle reported claims and unreported claims for incidents incurred but not reported as of the balance sheet date. At December 31, 2013, $524,034 of reserves was established related to such insurance programs versus $589,661 at December 31, 2012. The Company is a defendant in various other legal actions arising from the normal conduct of business. Management believes that none of the actions will have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. Based on management’s assessment and legal counsel’s representations concerning the likelihood of unfavorable outcomes, no amounts have been accrued for the above claims in the consolidated financial statements. The Company is not a party to any other material legal proceedings outside the ordinary course of business or to any other legal proceedings, which, if adversely determined, would have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations.

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6952336&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Details
Name: | us-gaap_DisclosureTextBlockAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration