Judge: Michael D. Washington, Case: 37-2024-00004385-CU-PT-NC, Date: 2024-04-26 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 28, 2024

03/29/2024  10:30:00 AM  N-31 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Michael D Washington

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Petitions - Other Hearing on Petition 37-2024-00004385-CU-PT-NC PETITION OF SWINGLYNE LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Amended Petition, 03/07/2024

The Petition for Approval of Transfer of Structured Settlement Payment Rights brought by petitioner Intelifund LLC (Petitioner) is continued to Friday, April 26, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. in Department N-31 to provide time for Petitioner to supplement the information provided in the Petition to address the issues set forth below.

Petitioner entered into an agreement with payee Mary Joyner (Payee) in which Petitioner will pay $201,415.00 to Payee immediately upon entry of an order by this Court granting the Petition, and, in return, Payee will be selling her rights to receive future payments totaling $598,605.82.

The issues that require supplemental information are as follows: --Income. Payee declares that she is employed, but does not provide information regarding what line of work she is in or information about her, biweekly, monthly, or annual income. Without such information, the Court is unable to assess whether the transaction is in the Payee's 'best interest' as the Court cannot get a full picture of Payee's financial situation.

--Financial Hardship. Payee declares that she is experiencing 'financial hardship,' but does not specify the nature of what is creating that hardship. The facts provided do not indicate that Payee has lost her employment, and they do not specify any particular hardship scenario such as a medical emergency, an accident, or some other unexpected event. To the extent that Payee is currently employed, the Court cannot see a 'hardship' on these facts other than possibly the difficultly of living within one's means, but even that cannot be assessed without information regarding Payee's employment.

--Use of the Funds. Payee declares she intends to use the 'majority' of the funds for moving. She does not state any other purposes for which she intends to use the money. As a 'majority' is only 51%, this statement leaves a potential 49% (just shy of $100,000.00 on the numbers provided in the Petition) that may go to purposes that the Court cannot presently assess. This is inadequate.

--Goal of Purchasing a Home. Payee declares that it is her 'goal' to purchase a home. Payee does not specify the price range of the home that she intends to purchase, but based on the Court's own judicially noticeable knowledge of general home pricing in San Diego County, the price of $201,415.00 is not likely to cover the entire purchase of a home. Supplemental information such as where Payee intends to purchase a home and sample home listings of the type that Payee plans to buy would be useful in assessing this stated goal and whether it is in Payee's 'best interest.' Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3091301 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  PETITION OF SWINGLYNE LLC [IMAGED]  37-2024-00004385-CU-PT-NC In addition to the above information that is not presently available in the Petition, the Court notes that Payee has a seven-year-old minor in her care. Payee has not provided the full terms of the original structured settlement, so the Court is unable to assess whether other monies will continue to be provided via the structured settlement. One thing that is of concern to the Court – particularly given the lack of information about Payee's employment income – is the fact that most of the payments to be sold to Petitioner are monthly payments that cover the time frame between January 2025 and December 2039. These routine monthly payments appear to the Court to be quite helpful in any 'hardship' situation in ensuring that there is money available to provide for the minor's daily needs. As such, without a copy of the total original structured settlement to see whether there are other later-in-time lump payments that could be traded in lieu of trading payments that provide a steady stream of cashflow while Payee has a minor to care for, the Court has reservations about the wisdom (i.e. the 'best interest') of a transaction that has an equivalent interest rate of 18.81% and receives about $0.49 on the dollar being traded away.

Unless the ruling(s) above indicate that an appearance is necessary, parties who wish to submit, who are satisfied with the above tentative ruling(s), and/or who do not otherwise wish to argue the motion(s) are encouraged to give notice to the Court and each other of their intention not to appear.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3091301