Browsed by
Tag: “best interest” “fair and reasonable” “New York SSPA” “New York structured settlement”

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

Four Months After Prior Transfer’s Denial, New York Court Rejects Another Settlement Factoring Deal

Four Months After Prior Transfer’s Denial, New York Court Rejects Another Settlement Factoring Deal

In only one of five prior proposed transfers of structured settlement payment rights in the previous five years did a court approve the transaction – and when a court considered a sixth proposed transfer, it pointed out that the papers before it did “not explain how the money from the prior approved transfer was spent, and if it went to the intended purposes.” The result, not surprisingly, was the the court rejected the sixth proposed transfer.  In doing so, it took…

Read More Read More

New York Judge, About Structured Settlement Factoring Deal, Says: ‘It May Only Provide Money now, While Taking It Away From the Future’

New York Judge, About Structured Settlement Factoring Deal, Says: ‘It May Only Provide Money now, While Taking It Away From the Future’

A New York trial court judge rejected a proposed transfer of structured settlement payment rights, commenting that “[i]t may only provide money now, while taking it away from the future.” In rejecting the proposed transfer described in the opinion in Matter of J.G. Wentworth Originations (Freeman), 15-150, 2016 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 657, 2016 NY Slip Op 30342(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 2, 2016), Judge Eugene D. Faughnan also pointed out how the reasons that the payee gave for the proposed…

Read More Read More

New York Court Says Transfer Was Not Fair, Reasonable Where Payee Was to Receive Less Than Half the Payments’ Discounted Present Value

New York Court Says Transfer Was Not Fair, Reasonable Where Payee Was to Receive Less Than Half the Payments’ Discounted Present Value

A proposed transfer of structured settlement payment rights that results in the payee receiving less than half of the discounted present value is not fair and reasonable under the New York Structured Settlement Protection Act, a New York state trial court judge ruled in a recent SSPA matter. In the case of In the Matter of 1 Apollo (Pardo), Index No.: 606049/15, Supreme Court, Nassau County, N.Y. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. 14, 2015) (Thomas Feinman, J.S.C.), Justice Feinman reviewed many of…

Read More Read More

Nearly A Decade Ago, A Concern Expressed about Whether Structured Settlement Factoring Had A ‘Disproportionate Impact on Persons of Color’

Nearly A Decade Ago, A Concern Expressed about Whether Structured Settlement Factoring Had A ‘Disproportionate Impact on Persons of Color’

The Washington Post began its investigation into structured settlement factoring practices with a story headlined, in the print edition, “Cashing in off poor lead-poisoning victims” and in the on-line version with this headline: “How companies make millions off lead-poisoned, poor blacks”. The Post’s investigation has led to a number of follow-up stories in the Post, as well as considerable attention from other media outlets. This is not the first time that questions have been raised about whether structured settlement factoring transactions have “a…

Read More Read More

New York SSPA Opinion: Judge Takes Note Of Some Additional Points

New York SSPA Opinion: Judge Takes Note Of Some Additional Points

A New York judge recently denied a request for court approval of a proposed transfer of structured settlement payment rights, saying that the transfer would not be in the payee’s best interest and was not fair and reasonable.  See New York Judge: Not the Court’s Job to Solve Factoring Company Problem ‘By Simply Rubber-Stamping’ Forged Orders. Without such approval, the proposed transfer is not effective, as per the statutory provisions of the New York Structured Settlement Protection Act. In the…

Read More Read More

New York Judge: Not the Court’s Job to Solve Factoring Company Problem ‘By Simply Rubber-Stamping’ Forged Orders

New York Judge: Not the Court’s Job to Solve Factoring Company Problem ‘By Simply Rubber-Stamping’ Forged Orders

In several New York Structured Settlement Protection Act matters in the past year or so, courts have had to deal with issues arising from forgeries of judicial orders. For example, a 2014 Secondary Insurance Market Blog post, “In New York Structured Settlement Protection Act Opinion, Court Critical Of Petitioner’s Failure To Explain Details Of Fraud That Led To Forged Order,” described how a New York judge rejected a request for court approval of a proposed transfer that had previously been…

Read More Read More

Under Structured Settlement Protection Acts, Child’s Interests Must Be Taken Into Account – and Costs ‘Grow Along With the Child’

Under Structured Settlement Protection Acts, Child’s Interests Must Be Taken Into Account – and Costs ‘Grow Along With the Child’

A court is to take into consideration the “welfare and support of the payee’s dependents” when considering whether to approve a proposed transfer of structured settlement payment rights. That’s the language that appears in most structured settlement protection acts (SSPAs), including the New York SSPA. And it was under the New York SSPA that one court had this to say about the interests of the dependents: The cost of raising a child is substantial and these costs grow along with…

Read More Read More

Lack of Admissible Evidence A Problem, Says Court In New York Structured Settlement Protection Act Proceeding

Lack of Admissible Evidence A Problem, Says Court In New York Structured Settlement Protection Act Proceeding

In a recent opinion involving the New York Structured Settlement Protection Act, the court took note of incorrect information about prior transfer attempts (as described in this post), and denied the request for court approval on best interest grounds. The court in Advance Funding, LLC v. Oladipo, Index No. 600852/14, Supreme Court, Nassau County (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 14, 2014), also found troubling the lack of admissible evidence provided by the factoring company: The Petition is made and verified solely by…

Read More Read More

Court That Rejected Transfer Takes Note Of Prior Transfer Petitions That Were All Withdrawn By Factoring Companies Before Any Judicial Action

Court That Rejected Transfer Takes Note Of Prior Transfer Petitions That Were All Withdrawn By Factoring Companies Before Any Judicial Action

As described in a post here, Judge Robert J. McDonald, of Queens County, New York’s, Supreme Court, recently denied a request, brought before him under the New York Structured Settlement Protection Act, that he approve a proposed transfer of structured settlement payment rights. Judge McDonald found the transfer was not in the payee’s best interest, and not “fair and reasonable” – two prerequisite findings for the transfer to receive court approval and become legally effective. The court took note of some…

Read More Read More