Investing in death but not in life

[tetrapod]

December 19, 2011; Source: LaCrosse Tribune | A court case in LaCrosse, Wisconsin focuses on the Hmong phrase "feem cuam," which one side of the dispute says can be translated as either "membership" or "responsibility ." The other side asserts that the phrase means only “membership.”

The Hmong Mutual Assistance Association was organized by the local Hmong community in 2005, not only as a community center but also to establish a location where funerals could be held. A lifetime membership for families comes at a price of $1,000, and that fee is supposed to guarantee families’ use of the center for funerals, which can draw hundreds and last up to three days. Somewhere between 230 and 240 families have paid the fee. (Non-members are required to pay a $10,000 fee to use the space for a funeral.)

When the center fell into financial problems in 2010, however, the Association went back to the original members for an additional $280 payment, and made it clear that if the additional fee were not paid the membership would be terminated.

Seventy percent of the families paid the additional money, but forty-two families filed suit, charging breach of contract and fraud. The lawyer for the plaintiffs says the Association had a responsibility to follow the law and fulfill the original contract, while the lawyer for the defendants asserts that membership is not a simple transaction like buying a car. In buying a membership, he said, the families were entering into an "ongoing relationship between the members and the organization [. . .] The free funeral service was a benefit of purchasing a membership," he wrote. "Not the thing being purchased."

The judge, facing a courtroom filled with three hundred Hmong community members and the parties on both sides of the dispute who said they were interested in saving the building, sent the question to mediation, urging them to work it out.

This is an interesting case in that it cuts to the heart of questions about the reciprocal responsibiliti es of membership. We would love to hear from readers about other, similar cases.—Ruth McCambridge

[Reporter]

What's "feem cuam"? Never heard of that before.

In Hmong, we have either "feem xyuam" or "xyom cuab," correct?

What are the Hmong in La Crosse saying?

But it looks like the organization's board has used up the 1K membership fees and are now asking for more?  A lifetime membership is a lifetime membership. They have to get new members if they want more money. They can't squeeze more out of the old members who have already paid their dues.

[tetrapod]

"Investing in death but not in life"?

Something wrong with having a funeral?

Nothing wrong with one.  But they sure invest large sum of money into it.  Why not use it to invest in bettering their lives? 

[Reporter]

I think you got the plaintiffs and defendants in reversed order, PHU.

Any judge with any brain cells would throw this case OUT in favor of the defendants.  What and where it went wrong about the language stated was what irritates me the MOST....someho w, the plaintiffs believes that they can just march in and change everything to thier liking.

If they're in a finnacial stress...it is time to sit down and brianstorm ways that can bring in some additional funds to run the building.  WORKING together for a common GOOD of the community somehow ESCAPED these IDIOTS!!!!  Throw them all in JAIL for fraud!!!

Ua tsaug.

[8v10un30sun]

Do what the US government do!  DILUTE.

[Xyooj96]

many hmong have not learned that cooperative ownership will not work for hmong (yet)

another of the options would be the facility be owned by one individual and everyone else just members. but then again, the hmong mentality would be each member starting their own facility too

[Bob_J.D.]

Just amazes me that we Hmongs will spend $40,000 on a funeral and barely is able to afford it, if not through generous donations but too damn cheap to make sure we live life to the fullest.

Why does it matter what other clans think if the funeral is $10,000 or $40,000.


bob

[tetrapod]

Just amazes me that we Hmongs will spend $40,000 on a funeral and barely is able to afford it, if not through generous donations but too damn cheap to make sure we live life to the fullest.

Why does it matter what other clans think if the funeral is $10,000 or $40,000.


bob

I think the family has little to say about the funeral than their clan leaders and their relatives.  They force it upon the family to carry the funeral certain way even if the family refused.  They can't refuse because they need the relatives to help them complete the funeral.  No family wants to be abandoned with their dead.  This is one of the biggest reason my parents are pushing me to accept religion.

[hmongtown]

December 19, 2011; Source: LaCrosse Tribune | A court case in LaCrosse, Wisconsin focuses on the Hmong phrase "feem cuam," which one side of the dispute says can be translated as either "membership" or "responsibility ." The other side asserts that the phrase means only “membership.”

The Hmong Mutual Assistance Association was organized by the local Hmong community in 2005, not only as a community center but also to establish a location where funerals could be held. A lifetime membership for families comes at a price of $1,000, and that fee is supposed to guarantee families’ use of the center for funerals, which can draw hundreds and last up to three days. Somewhere between 230 and 240 families have paid the fee. (Non-members are required to pay a $10,000 fee to use the space for a funeral.)

When the center fell into financial problems in 2010, however, the Association went back to the original members for an additional $280 payment, and made it clear that if the additional fee were not paid the membership would be terminated.

Seventy percent of the families paid the additional money, but forty-two families filed suit, charging breach of contract and fraud. The lawyer for the plaintiffs says the Association had a responsibility to follow the law and fulfill the original contract, while the lawyer for the defendants asserts that membership is not a simple transaction like buying a car. In buying a membership, he said, the families were entering into an "ongoing relationship between the members and the organization [. . .] The free funeral service was a benefit of purchasing a membership," he wrote. "Not the thing being purchased."

The judge, facing a courtroom filled with three hundred Hmong community members and the parties on both sides of the dispute who said they were interested in saving the building, sent the question to mediation, urging them to work it out.

This is an interesting case in that it cuts to the heart of questions about the reciprocal responsibiliti es of membership. We would love to hear from readers about other, similar cases.—Ruth McCambridge

Good idea, but not enough.

Should have created a pay per individual, instead of pay per family.