Browsed by
Category: Structured Settlements

Will 19-Year-Old, Employed in Cannabis Business, Use Factoring Proceeds to Buy Land? Unclear, Says Judge in Rejecting Transaction

Will 19-Year-Old, Employed in Cannabis Business, Use Factoring Proceeds to Buy Land? Unclear, Says Judge in Rejecting Transaction

The reason that a 19-year-old California man gave for seeking to sell more than $900,000 in future structured settlement payments – in exchange for a present sum of about $186,000 – was that the proceeds of the sale would be used “for his best interest, such as Purchase Land.” That was not sufficient for the court to give the go ahead and allow the man – who “is employed, earning $3,250 per month cultivating, growing, harvesting, analyzing and storing cannabis” – to sell those…

Read More Read More

‘Impulsive’ Transaction ‘Is Diametrically Opposed To The Very Purpose’ of New York’s Structured Settlement Protection Law, Says Court

‘Impulsive’ Transaction ‘Is Diametrically Opposed To The Very Purpose’ of New York’s Structured Settlement Protection Law, Says Court

An “impulsive transfer” of structured settlement payment rights was unrelated to any “real urgency” and, in fact, was “diametrically opposed to the very purpose of the” New York structured settlement protection act, an Empire State judge said in a recent opinion. New York Justice Peter J. Kelly issued the opinion in Matter of J.G. Wentworth Originations, LLC (McMichael), 2000-59/A, 2017 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2915, 2017 NY Slip Op 50989(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 2, 2017), about a payee, Nigel Criss, and…

Read More Read More

Vermont Supreme Court Says Judges Must Consider ‘All’ Best Interest Factors in Structured Settlement Protection Act Proceedings

Vermont Supreme Court Says Judges Must Consider ‘All’ Best Interest Factors in Structured Settlement Protection Act Proceedings

The Vermont Structured Settlement Protection Act, like all of the 49 state structured settlement protection acts (SSPAs), says that a transfer of settlement payment rights is not effective unless it complies with statutory requirements, including the requirement that a judge approve the transfer. The Vermont SSPA also provides that a judge can approve a transfer only if it finds that the transfer is in the best interest of the payee, “considering all relevant factors, including: (A) the payee’s ability to understand…

Read More Read More

In One of Several Lawsuits Against Factoring Company, Maryland Attorney General Weighs In on Proposed Settlement of Class Action

In One of Several Lawsuits Against Factoring Company, Maryland Attorney General Weighs In on Proposed Settlement of Class Action

The Maryland Attorney General’s office has sought to weigh in on a proposed settlement of a class action against factoring company Access Funding, with the AG saying that the structured settlement payees who make up the class should receive more compensation that the proposed deal calls for. That’s the gist of a Baltimore Sun report (Attorney General’s office and attorneys spar over settlement for lead victims, by reporter Carrie Wells) that appeared today, which is the date of a scheduled hearing…

Read More Read More

Texas Amends Structured Settlement Protection Act To Allow Redaction of Payee Names, Other Information

Texas Amends Structured Settlement Protection Act To Allow Redaction of Payee Names, Other Information

The Texas Structured Settlement Protection Act has been amended, and the new provisions are unique about the 49 state SSPAs. Each SSPA provides that an individual payee – the person entitled to receive future payments pursuant to the terms of a structured settlement – can only sell the future payment rights to a purchasing company (usually called a factoring company) when and if a judge reviews the transaction and approves the sale based on a determination that the transfer is in…

Read More Read More

Anomalous: One Way to Describe Kentucky Intermediate Appellate Court’s 2-1 Opinion in Structured Settlement Protection Act Case

Anomalous: One Way to Describe Kentucky Intermediate Appellate Court’s 2-1 Opinion in Structured Settlement Protection Act Case

  “Anomalous” is, according to the Dictionary.com, an adjective that has several meanings.  One “deviating from or inconsistent with the common order, form, or rule; irregular; abnormal.”  A second definition is “not fitting into a common or familiar type, classification, or pattern; unusual.”  And a third is “incongruous or inconsistent.” An opinion released by the Kentucky intermediate appellate court can be described as anomalous.  There are no other appellate opinions like it, and the those that address similar issues – even…

Read More Read More

Selling Future Structured Settlement Payments For Less Than Half The Present Value Is Not ‘Fair and Reasonable’, Says New York Court

Selling Future Structured Settlement Payments For Less Than Half The Present Value Is Not ‘Fair and Reasonable’, Says New York Court

The proposed sale would involve an exchange of future structured settlement payments with a face value of $90,951 and a discounted present value of $71,729 – and a proposed purchase price of $32,652. That was enough for the court to reject the sale. The proposed purchase price “is less than half of the discount[ed] present value, and therefore, is not ‘fair and reasonable,’” said New York Supreme Court Justice Thomas Feinman earlier this month in an opinion captioned In the Matter…

Read More Read More

Court Rules For Maryland Attorney General, Denies Factoring Company’s Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit

Court Rules For Maryland Attorney General, Denies Factoring Company’s Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit

As described in this Secondary Insurance Market Blog post from May, 2016, a little more than a year ago, the Maryland Attorney General filed a lawsuit that alleged that factoring company Access Funding, LLC, along with other defendants, made misrepresentations to Maryland courts when the company obtained more than 100 court orders approving transfers of structured settlement payment rights, and that those orders therefore should be invalidated. The Attorney General said that Access Funding engaged in unfair practices that included targeting…

Read More Read More

Add Oregon to List of States Enforcing Insurers’ Contract Rights under Structured Settlement Agreements

Add Oregon to List of States Enforcing Insurers’ Contract Rights under Structured Settlement Agreements

As described in this post, the Oregon Courts of Appeals in Johnson v. J.G. Wentworth Originations, LLC, 284 Ore. App. 47, 2017 Ore. App. LEXIS 280  (Ore. Ct. App. Mar. 1, 2017), earlier this year upheld the rights of a structured settlement obligor and annuity issuer to enforce a contractual anti-assignment provision and thereby preclude a proposed structured settlement factoring transaction. The post pointed out that the decision, in a proceeding commenced pursuant to the Oregon Structured Settlement Protection Act, applied California law, and followed “earlier precedent…

Read More Read More

Court Rules Against Pension Factoring Company That Challenged Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Authority, Investigation

Court Rules Against Pension Factoring Company That Challenged Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Authority, Investigation

A federal court has upheld the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Board’s structure, and further found that the CFPB’s investigation into a pension factoring company’s business practices was neither overboard nor outside the CFPB’s jurisdiction. In Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Future Income Payments, LLC, Case No. SACV 17-00303-JLS ((SSx), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80074 (C.D. Cal. May 17, 2017), Judge Josephine L. Staton of the federal district court for the Central District of California granted the CFPB’s petition…

Read More Read More