Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 24STCP00936, Date: 2024-05-30 Tentative Ruling

Petitioner Structured Settlement Capital, LLC’s first amended petition for approval of transfer of structured settlement payment rights is denied without prejudice.

Petitioner Structured Settlement Capital, LLC (“SSC”) (“Petitioner”) petitions this Court to approve its First Amended Petition (“FAP”) for Approval of Transfer of Structured Settlement Payment Rights. (Amended Notice, pg. 2; Ins. Code §10139.5.)

Petitioner’s FAP seeks a court order approving a transfer of structured settlement payment rights under which Payment Obligor, Brighthouse Financial/Brighthouse Life Insurance Company (“Brighthouse Financial”) (“Payment Obligor”) purchased an annuity contract issued by and Brighthouse Life Insurance Company (“BLIC”) (“Payment Issuer”) to fund its obligation to Payee Joel Curiel (“Payee”). (FAP ¶¶1-2.) Payee entered into a transfer agreement (“Transfer Agreement”) to transfer to Petitioner or its assignee certain structured settlement payments described in ¶1 of the Transfer Agreement (“Transferred Payments”). (FAP ¶4, Exh. 2.)

Insurance Code §10139 requires Petitioner to file a copy of the petition, the disclosure statement, the transfer agreement, and other documents with the Attorney General.

Petitioner’s Amended Notice attaches a notice of compliance addressed to the Attorney General verifying, under penalty of perjury, that all provisions of Insurance Code §§10136, 10137, 10138 have been met relating to the application for approval of the transfer of the structured settlement payment rights. (Amended Notice, Exh. A.) However, Petitioner has not filed a proof of service for the Petition, and Petitioner’s Amended Notice does not declare that is complied with Insurance Code §10139.

Pursuant to the Insurance Code, “Every petition for approval of a transfer of structured settlement payment rights, except as provided in subdivision (d), shall include, to the extent known after the transferee has made reasonable inquiry with the payee, all of the following:

(2) The payee’s marital status, and, if married or separated, the name of the payee’s spouse.

(3) The names, ages, and place or places of residence of the payee’s minor children or other dependents, if any.

(4) The amounts and sources of the payee’s monthly income and financial resources and, if presently married, the amounts and sources of the monthly income and financial resources of the payee’s spouse.

(5) Whether the payee is currently obligated under any child support or spousal support order, and, if so, the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of any individual, entity, or agency that is receiving child or spousal support from the payee under that order or that has jurisdiction over the order or the payments in question.

(6) Information regarding previous transfers or attempted transfers, as described in paragraph (11), (12), or (13) of subdivision (b). The transferee or payee may choose to provide this information by providing copies of pleadings, transaction documents, or orders involving any previous attempted or completed transfer or by providing the court a summary of available information regarding any previous transfer or attempted transfer, such as the date of the transfer or attempted transfer, the payments transferred or attempted to be transferred by the payee in the earlier transaction, the amount of money received by the payee in connection with the previous transaction, and generally the payee’s reasons for pursuing or completing a previous transaction.

The Petition includes some, but not all, of the information required under Insurance Code section 10139.5(c). (Decl. of Curiel ¶¶2-12.) Payee declares he is not married and does not have any minor children. (Decl. of Curiel ¶¶3-4.) Payee declares he is retired. (Decl. of Curiel ¶5.) Payee declares he does not have any child support obligations. (Decl. of Curiel ¶7.) Payee declares he previously assigned a portion of his structured settlement payment rights on several prior occasions from 2011 to 2019:

a. On October 18, 2011, Los Angeles Superior Court, Central District granted a petition from Stone Street Capital, Case #BS133808.

b. On November 16, 2011, Judge Ralph Dau, of the Los Angeles Superior Court, Central District granted a petition by Stone Street Capital, case #BS133850, wherein Payee sold a $40,000 payment due 4/15/14 for discounted proceeds.

c. On November 7, 2012, Judge Daniel Buckley of the Los Angeles Superior Court, Central District granted a petition to Stone Street Capital case# BS139198, wherein Payee sold a $60,000 payment due 4/15/2014 for proceeds of $44,685.

d. On December 11, 2014, the Los Angeles Superior Court, Central instruct granted a petition to Stone Street Capital, #BS150534, wherein Payee sold a $100,000 payment due on April 15, 2019 for proceeds of $60,000.

e. On October 26, 2016, Judge Suzanne Bruguera of the Los Angeles Superior Court Central District, granted a petition to Stone Street Capital, #BS139198 wherein Payee sold a payment of $125,000 due on April 15, 2024, for $67,500.

f. On March 21, 2018, Judge Dan Oki of the Los Angeles Superior Court East District granted a petition to Structured Asset Funding, LLC, under case #KS021140, wherein Payee sold two lump sums each in the amount of $125,000 due on 4/15/2029 and 4/15/2034 in exchange for a lump sum of $102,553.

g. On December 13, 2019, JG Wentworth filed a petition in Los Angeles Superior Court North Central District, Burbank Courthouse under case #19BBCP00435 wherein Payee petitioned the court for approval to sell additional settlement payments in exchange for $87,000 in order to pay college loans for my children and to pay off other debts. On January 22, 2020, Payee’s aforementioned petition with JG Wentworth under case #19BBCP00435 was dismissed.

Payee’s declaration fails to state the amounts and sources of Payee’s monthly income and financial resources; Payee merely declares that he is retired. (See Decl. of Curiel ¶5.) Further, Payee’s declaration regarding his previous transfers does not include information regarding the reasons for pursuing or completing previous transactions, except for his last attempt to sell additional payments, which was dismissed. (See Decl. of Curiel ¶12(g).)

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court