Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 24STCP02551, Date: 2024-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Please notify Department 52 via email at smcdept52@lacourt.org and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.

Case Number: 24STCP02551    Hearing Date: September 20, 2024    Dept: 52

Petitioner Rich Horizons, LLC’s Petition for Approval of Transfer of Structured Settlement Payment Rights

Petitioner Rich Horizons, LLC petitions for approval of transfer of structured settlement rights by payee “R.M.”  The petition is procedurally defective for two reasons. 

First, 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.  (R.M. Decl., ¶ 2.)  Not only do those redactions violate Insurance Code section 10139.5(c), but also they 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.) 

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

The court also denies the petition on the merits.  Payee R.M.’s declaration states, “I intend to use the proceeds I receive … to work closely with a financial advisor to monitor and grow my money.”  (Ex. G, R.M. Affidavit, ¶ 9; Ex. H, R.M. Decl., ¶ 10.)  Payee had the right under Insurance Code section 10139.5, subdivision (h) to have petitioner pay up to $1,500 for independent legal or financial advice about this transaction.  As required, petitioner advised R.M. of that right.  (Ex. A, addendum to contract, ¶ J.)  Yet R.M. chose to waive that right.  (Ex. C.)  

The time to begin working with a financial advisor is before the transfer, when petitioner must pay up to $1,500 of the cost of that advice.  Someone who waives that right but claims he or she plans to “work closely with a financial advisor to monitor and grow [his or her] money” (Ex. G, R.M. Affidavit, ¶ 9; Ex. H, R.M. Decl., ¶ 10) is not properly ensuring the transfer is fair, reasonable, and in his or her best interest. 

The petition is denied.