Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 22STCP04061, Date: 2022-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP04061    Hearing Date: December 12, 2022    Dept: 52

Tentative Ruling:

Petitioner Daou Whitehaven, LLC’s Petition for Approval of Transfer of Structured Settlement Payment Rights

Petitioner Daou Whitehaven, LLC’s petition for approval of transfer of structured settlement rights has four defects.

First, petitioner did not file proof of service of notice of this hearing on the interested parties. Notice of the proposed transfer and hearing date must be filed with the court and served on all “interested parties” not less than 20 days prior to the hearing on a petition for approval of a transfer of structured settlement payment rights. (Ins. Code, § 10139.5(f)(2)(K).) “Interested parties” includes the payee, the annuity issuer, and “any other party who has continuing rights or obligations under the structured settlement agreement.” (Ins. Code, § 10134(g).) Petitioner filed a notice of this hearing on November 15, 2022, but did not include proof it was served on the interested parties.

Second, petitioner did not provide required information about the payee. Insurance Code §10139.5(c) requires that the petitioner provide certain personal information about the payee, including: “(1) The Payee’s name, address, and age” and “(4) The amounts and sources of the payee’s monthly income and financial resources.” Petitioner did not provide those. Petitioner redacted the payee’s name, address, and age. (B.M. Decl., ¶ 2.) Not only do those redactions violate Insurance Code section 10139.5(c), but they also interfere with the right of public access to court records. (See Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 105, 111-112.) And petitioner did not provide the amounts and sources of the payee’s monthly income and financial resources.

Third, petitioner did not attach a copy of the annuity contract or of the underlying structured settlement agreement as required. (Ins. Code, § 10139.5(f)(2)(E) & (G).)

Fourth, petitioner did not provide sufficient information for the court to determine whether the transfer “is fair and reasonable and in the best interest of the payee.” (Ins. Code, § 10137(a).) Specifically, the court must consider “[w]hether the financial terms of the transaction, including the discount rate applied to determine the amount to be paid to the payee, the expenses and costs of the transaction for both the payee and the transferee, the size of the transaction, the available financial alternatives to the payee to achieve the payee’s stated objectives, are fair and reasonable.” (Ins. Code, § 10139.5(b)(9).) Petitioner redacted all financial details: the amount of the structured settlement payments, the amount of petitioner’s payment for the transfer, and the

effective equalized interest rate. Without that information, the court cannot evaluate the proposed transfer’s fairness.

The petition is denied without prejudice. Petitioner may reserve a new hearing date and file an amended petition to cure the defects described above.