Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCP02394, Date: 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP02394    Hearing Date: August 25, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY:  Petitioner Peachtree Settlement Funding, LLC (“Petitioner”)

The Court has considered the moving papers.  No opposition papers were filed.  Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b).

BACKGROUND

            On August 2, 2023, Petitioner filed a first amended petition (the “FAP”) for approval of transfer of structured payment rights on behalf of Victoria Duderstadt (“Duderstadt”).  The FAP requests approval for Duderstadt to transfer to Petitioner 360 future monthly payments of $550 between December 1, 2023 and November 1, 2053 of $550, one payment of $55,000 on September 21, 2032, and one payment off $55,000 on September 21, 2052.  In exchange for the payments, Duderstadt would receive $79,115. 

DISCUSSION

Under Insurance Code section 10139.5, subdivision (a), the direct or indirect transfer of structured settlement payment rights is not effective unless the transfer has been approved by a court order finding:

(1) The transfer is in the best interest of the payee, taking into account the welfare and support of the payee’s dependents;

(2) The payee has been advised in writing by the transferee to seek independent professional advice regarding the transfer and has either received that advice or knowingly waived, in writing, the opportunity to receive the advice;

(3) The transferee has complied with the notification requirements pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (f), the transferee has provided the payee with a disclosure form that complies with Section 10136, and the transfer agreement complies with Sections 10136 and 10138;

(4) The transfer does not contravene any applicable statute or the order of any court or other government authority;

(5) The payee understands the terms of the transfer agreement, including the terms set forth in the disclosure statement required by Section 10136; and

(6) The payee understands and does not wish to exercise the payee’s right to cancel the transfer agreement. 

(Ins. Code § 10139.5, subd. (a).)

When determining whether the transfer is fair, reasonable, and in the payee’s best interests, the court must consider the totality of the circumstances, including but not limited to: (1) the reasonable preference and desire of the payee to complete the proposed transaction, taking into account the payee’s age, mental capacity, legal knowledge, and apparent maturity level; (2) the stated purpose of the transfer; (3) the payee’s financial and economic situation; (4) the terms of the transaction, including whether the payee is transferring monthly or lump sum payments or all or a portion of his or her future payments; (5) whether, when the settlement was completed, the future periodic payments that are the subject of the proposed transfer were intended to pay for the future medical care and treatment of the payee relating to injuries sustained by the payee in the incident that was the subject of the settlement and whether the payee still needs those future payments to pay for that future care and treatment; (6) whether, when the settlement was completed, the future periodic payments that are the subject of the proposed transfer were intended to provide for the necessary living expenses of the payee and whether the payee still needs the future structured settlement payments to pay for future necessary living expenses; (7) whether the payee is, at the time of the proposed transfer, likely to require future medical care and treatment for the injuries that the payee sustained in connection with the incident that was the subject of the settlement and whether the payee lacks other resources, including insurance, sufficient to cover those future medical expenses; (8) whether the payee has other means of income or support, aside from the structured settlement payments that are the subject of the proposed transfer, sufficient to meet the payee’s future financial obligations for maintenance and support of the payee’s dependents, specifically including, but not limited to, the payee’s child support obligations, if any; (9) whether 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; (10) whether the payee completed previous transactions involving the payee’s structured settlement payments and the timing and size of the previous transactions and whether the payee was satisfied with any previous transaction; (11) whether the transferee attempted previous transactions involving the payee’s structured settlement payments that were denied, or that were dismissed or withdrawn prior to a decision on the merits, within the past five years; (12) whether, to the best of the transferee’s knowledge after making inquiry with the payee, the payee has attempted structured settlement payment transfer transactions with another person or entity, other than the transferee, that were denied, or which were dismissed or withdrawn prior to a decision on the merits, within the past five years; (13) whether the payee, or his or her family or dependents, are in or are facing a hardship situation; (14) whether the payee received independent legal or financial advice regarding the transaction; and (15) any other factors or facts that the payee, the transferee, or any other interested party calls to the attention of the reviewing court or that the court determines should be considered in reviewing the transfer.  (Ins. Code. § 10139.5, subd. (b).)

The FAP includes a copy of the purchase agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) for the sale and the disclosure form required by Insurance Code section 10136.  (See Exhibits A-B.)  The annuity contract is attached as Exhibit C.  The FAP provides evidence that Duderstadt entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement”) in 2013, which the supporting declaration affirms, although no copy of the Settlement was filed with the Court. copy of the underlying settlement agreement could not be located.  (See Declaration of Victoria Duderstadt (“Duderstadt Decl.”) ¶ 4.) 

The Settlement was not intended to pay for future medical care and was monetary in its entirety.  (Duderstadt Decl. ¶ 6.)  Duderstadt is 30 years old, has no minor children, and is not married.  (Duderstadt Decl. ¶ 8.)  Plaintiff works approximately 25 hours per week at a rate of $28 per hour.  (Id.)  Plaintiff has not completed or attempted previous transactions regarding her Settlement payments.  (Duderstadt Decl. ¶¶ 9-10.)  Plaintiff declares that she is experiencing a financial hardship and plans to use the money from the transaction to supplement the income she earns from her part-time job.  (Duderstadt Decl. ¶ 11.)  Duderstadt also plans to use the money to develop her online clothing business and putting a down payment on a condo.  (See id., Exhibit A.)  

The Court has reviewed the petition and the supporting documents and finds that the transfer is in Duderstadt’s best interest, in light of the amount of future Settlement payments that would be transferred under the Agreement, the total amount that she would receive in exchange for the future payments, and the information regarding Duderstadt’s plans to use the funds to develop her business.    The Court finds that the proposed transfer detailed in the Purchase Agreement is fair, reasonable and in Duderstadt’s best interest.  Pending her appearance at the hearing, the Court provisionally GRANTS the FAP.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. 

          Dated this 25th day of August 2023