Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 23STCP04324, Date: 2023-12-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP04324    Hearing Date: February 6, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

On November 28, 2023 in this action, Petitioner Bentzen Financial, LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Verified Petition for Approval for Transfer of Structured Settlement Payment Rights by and Between S.B., Transferor, and Petitioner, Transferee, pursuant to California Insurance Code section 10134, et seq.

On December 7, 2023, Petitioner filed a First Amended Verified Petition for Approval for Transfer of Structured Settlement Payment Rights By and Between S.B., Transferor, and Petitioner, Transferee, pursuant to California Insurance Code section 10134, et seq. Petitioner requests that the Court approve the transfer of certain structured settlement payment rights by and between Shawn Becerrada (“Payee”) and Petitioner pursuant to Insurance Code section 10134, et seq.

On January 3, 2024, the Court issued a minute order concerning the instant petition, which provides, inter alia, that “the First Amended Verified Petition is continued to February 6, 2024 so Petitioner can file an Amended Declaration and provide the requisite notice.” On January 30, 2024, Petitioner filed a “Supplemental Exhibit ‘H’ to First Amended Verified Petition for Approval for Transfer of Payment Rights.”

Discussion

The Court notes that the January 3, 2024 minute order provides, inter alia, as follows:

“The Court finds that the transaction is fair and reasonable and in the best interest of Payee. However, under Insurance Code section 10139.5, subdivision (c)(5), ‘[e]very 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:…(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.’ As set forth above, Payee states that ‘I owe child support that is in the process of being paid off out of settlement proceeds set aside by my attorney.’ (Becerrada Decl., ¶ 3.) However, Payee does not specify whether he is currently obligated under any child support order, and, if so, the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of any individual, entity, or agency that is receiving child support from Payee under that order or that has jurisdiction over the order or the payments in question. (Ins. Code, § 10139.5, subd. (c)(5).).” (See January 3, 2024 minute order at pp. 3-4.)

In his supplemental declaration filed on January 30, 2024, Payee states that “[a]s part of the settlement of my underlying legal claim, my attorneys at the Claypool Law Firm paid $173,721.29 of my settlement proceeds directly to the California State Disbursement Unit for child support payments on my behalf.” (Suppl. Becerrada Decl., ¶ 6.) Payee states that “[s]ubsequently, I received a statement from the California State Disbursement Unit dated January 6, 2024, showing my past due support amount as $4,179.61. I’ve attached the statement from the California State Disbursement Unit.” (Suppl. Becerrada Decl., ¶ 7.) Payee states that he “will use part of the proceeds of this transaction to pay all remaining past due child support.” (Suppl. Becerrada Decl., ¶ 8.)

In the January 3, 2024 minute order, the Court also noted as follows:

“In addition, the notice of the proposed transfer and the petition for its authorization shall include, inter alia, ‘[n]otification that any interested party is entitled to support, oppose, or otherwise respond to the transferee’s petition, either in person or by counsel, by submitting written comments to the court or by participating in the hearing,” and ‘[n]otification of the time and place of the hearing and notification of the manner in which and the time by which written responses to the petition must be filed, which may not be less than 15 days after service of the transferee’s notice, in order to be considered by the court.’ (Ins. Code, § 10139.5, subds. (f)(2)(J)-(K).) It does not appear that such notifications were included in the instant First Amended Verified Petition.” (January 3, 2024 minute order at p. 4.)

As set forth above, the Court’s January 3, 2024 minute order provides that “the First Amended Verified Petition is continued to February 6, 2024 so Petitioner can file an Amended Declaration and provide the requisite notice.” (January 3, 2024 minute order at p. 4, emphasis added.) However, it still does not appear that Petitioner has provided “[n]otification that any interested party is entitled to support, oppose, or otherwise respond to the transferee’s petition, either in person or by counsel, by submitting written comments to the court or by participating in the hearing,” or “notification of the manner in which and the time by which written responses to the petition must be filed, which may not be less than 15 days after service of the transferee’s notice, in order to be considered by the court.” (Ins. Code, § 10139.5, subds. (f)(2)(J)-(K).)

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the First Amended Verified Petition is continued to _________________, 2024 so Petitioner can provide the requisite notice.

Petitioner is ordered to provide notice of this order.

DATED:  February 6, 2024                            ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court