Browsed by
Tag: “California SSPA” “California Structured Settlement Protection Act” “California structured settlement factoring” “structured settlement factoring”

No Proof That Factoring Company Notified California Attorney General, Payee, Others, Says Court In Rejecting Proposed Transfer

No Proof That Factoring Company Notified California Attorney General, Payee, Others, Says Court In Rejecting Proposed Transfer

The payee changed his mind about selling his settlement payment rights, and the factoring company provided the court with no proof of service on interesting parties and included a prohibited provision in its proposed contract, so a California court recently issued a ruling rejecting a proposed transfer of structured settlement payment rights. Orange County, California, Superior Court Judge Robert J. Moss issued a May 18, 2018 tentative order denying the petition for court approval, under the California Structured Settlement Protection…

Read More Read More

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

Appeals Court Reverses Split-Payment Order

Appeals Court Reverses Split-Payment Order

A California Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s order approving a transfer of structured settlement payment rights because the order would have required that the future payments be split. In RSL Funding, LLC v. Alford, 239 Cal. App. 4th 741 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2015), the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, reversed the decision of a Riverside County, California, Superior Court that approved a transfer. The appellate court held that the approval violated the provision of the California…

Read More Read More

California Court: Structured Settlement Factoring Transaction Did Not Comply with Statutory Requirements

California Court: Structured Settlement Factoring Transaction Did Not Comply with Statutory Requirements

A California court last month issued a tentative ruling rejecting a proposed transfer of structured settlement payment rights because the transfer failed to comply with the statutory requirements of the California Structured Settlement Protection Act. In re Whipp, Case Number 181581, Superior Court, Shasta County, Calif., is the proceeding in which the court issued its March 9, 2015 tentative ruling.  The ruling stated as follows: [California] Insurance Code section 10134 et seq. sets forth the requirements for transfers of structured settlement…

Read More Read More

Supplemental Information – When Inconsistent With Previous Court Filings – May Undermine Factoring Company Transfer Request

Supplemental Information – When Inconsistent With Previous Court Filings – May Undermine Factoring Company Transfer Request

Sometimes, proposed transfers of structured settlement payment rights lead courts to ask questions about the details of the transactions – and that may, in turn, lead the petitioning factoring company to file additional information for the court. And sometimes, that additional information is inconsistent with the originally-filed papers – and may lead the court to reject the transaction. A 2012 case from California illustrates this situation. The court in In Re: Dosty, No. 34-2012-00132061, Superior Court, Sacramento, California (Calif. Super….

Read More Read More

California Court: Factoring Transaction Not In Payee’s Best Interest

California Court: Factoring Transaction Not In Payee’s Best Interest

An unemployed, disabled, single mother’s best interests would not be served by the sale of nearly $100,000 in structured settlement payments in exchange for an immediate lump sum of $40,000, a California trial court judge ruled a few months ago. One additional fact noted by the court was that the payee did not show that she had any source of income – other than the structured settlement payments – for living expenses for her and her daughter. In the case…

Read More Read More

Law Review Article Begins With A Cautionary Tale

Law Review Article Begins With A Cautionary Tale

“At just three years of age, Orion Olson began experiencing vision and neurological problems associated with injuries sustained from a dog bite.  He continued to encounter hardship, dropping out of high school in his teens and later finding himself homeless.  Hope, however, lingered on the horizon.  When Orion turned eighteen, he would begin collecting periodic payments totaling $75,000, an amount he obtained in the settlement of a lawsuit relating to the dog attack.  Unfortunately, after receiving his first payment of…

Read More Read More