Browsed by
Tag: Florida structured settlement

Florida Court Sentences Factoring Company Attorney for Forging Judges’ Signatures on ‘Orders’ Involving Transfers of Settlement Payments

Florida Court Sentences Factoring Company Attorney for Forging Judges’ Signatures on ‘Orders’ Involving Transfers of Settlement Payments

One-hundred and eleven and three-hundred and sixty-four. One-hundred and eleven is the number of times that Jose Manuel Camacho Jr. was alleged to have forged the signatures of Broward County, Florida, judges on documents that he passed off as “orders” – orders approving transfers of structured settlement payment rights. Three-hundred and sixty-four is the number of days that Camacho was sentenced to spend in county jail, when he was sentenced in August, after pleading guilty to 14 counts of forgery…

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

After Court Invalidates Structured Settlement Payment Transfer Order, Re-Assignees Sue Financial Advisors, Factoring Company

After Court Invalidates Structured Settlement Payment Transfer Order, Re-Assignees Sue Financial Advisors, Factoring Company

The federal court’s ruling last week in a lawsuit captioned Wall v. Corona Capital, Civil Action No. 16-1044, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161683 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 22, 2016), has to do primarily with whether the court has personal jurisdiction over Corona in Pennsylvania, and also whether the court should agree with a financial advisor company’s request to transfer to federal court in New Jersey. And the decision can be summed up by saying that the court found that it did not…

Read More Read More