Judge Michelle Williams Court, Case 22STCP02600 2022-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 22STCP02600, Date: 2022-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP02600 Hearing Date: October 24, 2022 Dept: 74

22STCP02600 PEACHTREE SETTLEMENT FUNDING vs ADRIANNA MONTERROSSA

Hearing on Petition for Approval for Transfer of Payment Rights

TENTATIVE RULING: The petition is DENIED without prejudice to the filing and service of a complete, amended petition. Petitioner must obtain a new hearing date and timely file and serve a complete amended petition with all required exhibits. Additionally, Petitioner must provide the Court with a copy of the order appointing Adrianna Monterrosa as the administrator of the estate issued by the probate court in 21STPB00681 In Re: Estate of Edwin Monterrosa.

Background

On July 12, 2022, Petitioner Peachtree Settlement Funding filed its Verified Petition for Approval for Transfer of Payment Rights and the declaration of Adriana Monterrosa as Administrator of the Estate off Edwin Monterrosa Sr. The Petition involved the transfer of one payment of $100,000.00 due on March 30, 2025 for $75,000.00.

On July 22, 2022, Petitioner filed a Notice of Hearing on Petition with the hearing set for Monday, October 24, 2022.

On October 6, 2022, Petitioner filed “Amended Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ to Petition for Approval for Transfer of Payment Rights Pursuant to California Insurance Code § 10134, et seq.” These exhibits indicate the transferred assets will now include one payment of $100,000.00 due on March 30, 2025 and one payment of $125,000.00 on March 30, 2030 for a total of $148,405.35, instead of $75,000.00 to the payee.

On October 12, 2022, Petitioner filed the Amended Declaration of Payee in Support of Petitioner's Petition for Approval for Transfer of Payment Rights.

Discussion

As noted above, Petitioner purported to provide amended exhibits, which significantly increased the payment amount at issue. Petitioner did not file an amended petition, and therefore the petition is inconsistent with the amended exhibits and the relief sought. (See e.g. Pet. at 4:13 (“If approved, Payee will receive $75,000.00 from this transaction.”).) The petition is also inconsistent with both declarations provided by Adriana Monterrosa regarding her employment status. (Compare Pet. at 4:12-13 (“Administrator of the Estate, Adriana Monterrosa is currently employed.”) with Monterrosa Decl. ¶ 8 (“Edwin Monterrosa Sr. was married at his time of death to Adriana Monterrosa who is currently unemployed.”) and Am. Monterrosa Decl. ¶ 8 (same).)

Moreover, Insurance Code section 10139.5(f)(2) provides that the petition and all supporting documents shall be filed and served “[n]ot less than 20 days prior to the scheduled hearing on any petition for approval of a transfer of structured settlement payment rights under this article.” Petitioner’s amended exhibits and amended declaration were filed and served less than 20 days prior to the October 24, 2022 hearing. Accordingly, the amendments, in addition to being inconsistent with the petition, are untimely based upon hearing date.

Pursuant to Insurance Code section 10139.5(f)(2)(G) further provides that Petitioner must file and serve “[a] copy of the underlying structured settlement agreement, if available.” The Petition indicates in a footnote that “Payee is in the process of obtaining settlement documentation. Exhibit ‘D’ will be supplemented once it is received.” (Pet. at 5 n.1.) Petitioner has not provided the settlement documentation within the time required. (Ins. Code § 10139.5(f)(2).)

Pursuant to Insurance Code section 10139.5(f)(2)(H), if the settlement agreement “is unavailable or cannot be located, then the transferee is not required to attach a copy of that document to the petition or notice of the proposed transfer if the transferee satisfies the court that reasonable efforts to locate and secure a copy of the document have been made, including making inquiry with the payee.” The amended declaration of the Payee states “Estate of Edwin Monterrosa Sr. believes it is in Estates best interest to enter into the transaction contemplated in the Purchase Agreement as the original structured settlement entered into by Edwin Monterrosa Sr. in 1996 which is attached as Exhibit ‘D’ to the Petition.” (Am. Monterrosa Decl. ¶ 4.) Neither the original Petition nor the amended exhibits include Exhibit D. Petitioner must provide the settlement documents or explain why they are unavailable considering Monterrosa’s amended declaration suggesting they were attached to the petition.

Finally, the petition indicates the “Estate of Edwin Monterrosa Sr. is currently open in Probate in Los Angeles County (Case No. 21STPB00681).” (Pet. ¶ 2.) Petitioner must provide the Court with a copy of the order appointing Adrianna Monterrosa as the administrator of the estate. If the Estate is represented by an attorney in the probate action, the Amended Petition must also be served upon that attorney. (Ins. Code § 10134(g); 10135.9(f)(2).)

Conclusion

For all these reasons, the matter is DENIED without prejudice to the filing and service of a complete, amended petition.

Petitioner must obtain a new hearing date and timely file and serve a complete amended petition with all required exhibits. Additionally, Petitioner must provide the Court with a copy of the order appointing Adrianna Monterrosa as the administrator of the estate issued by the probate court in 21STPB00681 In Re: Estate of Edwin Monterrosa.