Judge: David Sotelo, Case: 22STCP02394, Date: 2022-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP02394    Hearing Date: September 7, 2022    Dept: 40

The Court finds this Petition deficient in various respects and will continue this hearing:

1.         The Court cannot determine from the documents provided that the Payee lives in Los Angeles County. (See Ins. Code, § 10139.5, subd. (f)(1).)

a.         While the Proof of Service dated 7/5/22 indicates that "Payee Address to be provided at hearing," it would be better practice to file a sufficiently complete Petition to Transfer, with (1) a Declaration from the Payee attesting to this information, (2) a Motion to Seal the public record of the Petition and supporting document, and (3) lodged records with the Court providing unredacted copies of the Petition and its supporting evidence.

2.         The Court cannot determine from the documents provided that Payee was served with the Petition and supporting documents at least 20 days before this hearing because the Proof of Service provided by Peachtree does not contain any address information for Payee, instead indicating that "Payee Address to be provided at hearing." (See Ins. Code, § 10139.5, subd. (f)(2).)

3.         The Court has not received from Petitioner Peachtree information for or copies of prior petitions for Structured Settlement Payments related to the Payee. (See Ins. Code, § 10139.5, subds. (f)(2)(A).)

a.         Berkshire Hathaway provides these documents in their Response to the Peachtree Petition. (See Aug. 24, 2022 Berkshire Response, Neville Decl., Ex. C.)

4.         The Court has not received from Petitioner Peachtree information regarding the Payee's dependents. (See Ins. Code, § 10139.5, subds. (f)(2)(C).)

a.         Berkshire Hathaway provides that Payee has a minor son. (See Aug. 24, 2022 Berkshire Response, 4:12-14.)

5.         The Petition itself does not contain the dependent information required by the Insurance Code. (See Ins. Code, § 10139.5, subd. (c)(1)-(6).)

6.         It is not clear that the Petition is in the best interests of the Payee, particularly where the Petition is not accompanied by a Declaration from the Payee explaining his circumstances and the reasons why this transfer is in his best interests. (See Ins. Code, § 10139.5, subd. (a)(1).)

Important Note

The Annuity Provider (Berkshire Hathaway) essentially files an Opposition by way of a  "Response," in which Berkshire (1) essentially (and correctly) argues that Peachtree’s Petition (a) is insufficient with regard to the information provided and (b) is not in the best interests of Payee Juan Vasquez under the current circumstances and (2) offers an alternative buyout for a company related to Berkshire.

A Continuance will give Petitioner opportunity to consider the alternate buyout offered by Berkshire in its Response.