Select Page

Customary common law knew nothing of the right of compensation for selling or supplying inebriating liquor to a drunken person. The common law imputed liability on the individual who consumed the alcohol as it viewed the act of vending as too remote to provide a proximate cause of personal injury or property damage resulting from the negligence of the intoxicated man. The common law doctrine operates to provide immunity for mere negligence or negligence per se breaching a statute. Gulf of proximate causation entails a state legislation that directly ascribes liability against the common law. In most US states, the legislatures have obliterated tort liability against the liquor supplier with only one exception, namely, supplying alcohol to an already intoxicated minor.

Michael Ernest (then six months) sustained severe injuries and lost his father in a horrible car crash. He had been ensconced in a baby car seat in the rear. It turned out the errant driver had been overly intoxicated alongside the occupants of the vehicle in a hockey club party. The organization that hosted the college students got enjoined in the suit as a co-defendant and had to pay Ernest compensation money. His mother and attorney negotiated a stream of income for Ernest which would mature when he would turn eighteen years of age. The arrangement, also known as a “structured settlement” bequeathed periodical payments cashable monthly and valued at $700 with an annual increase rate of 3%. When his ship came in at the age of 18, Ernest relished in the tax-free income. A few years later after he had been around the block, Ernest had discovered life is a lottery for many. He decided to sell his structured settlement payments for an investable lump sum payout.

 Sell Structured Settlement

Bombard Factoring Companies With Questions Before Selling

Ernest felt caught between the devil and the deep blue sea when he got fired and needed to venture out on his own. The layoff award got sponged off by household bills quickly as he had no alternative source of income. The ray of hope in sight was his structured settlement payments beyond the horizon. He discovered a market for annuities and combed through to obtain the highest bid from a pack of factoring companies. Ernest had long-drawn-out experience in bargaining. He dismissed companies that tried to box him into the corner and played hardball until he obtained a fair deal online.

Get Down to Brass Tracks With the Transfer Process

As a regulated transaction, the transfer of payment rights means big brother is watching, and you cannot buck the system. Structured settlement purchasing companies have the responsibility of complying with the procedural requirements laid down in state legislation. The structured settlement financing company that acquired Ernest’s payment rights had to file an application twenty days after giving notice to the defendant’s insurance company. The disclosure statement revealed the gross advance amount payable to him upon court approval, a cancellation clause and a recommendation to an independent professional advisor. He embossed his signature on the transfer agreement and disclosures, filled in an affidavit and forwarded the notarized copies back to the factoring company momentarily.

With the Judge, You Beard the Lion In His Den

Even if your state has no Structured Settlement Protection Act, federal law mandates all sales undergo court review and get sanctioned with a “qualifying order”. The judge who assessed the transaction had powers to approve or decline based on equity, pragmatism, and fairness. However, judges do not sign off these transactions whimsically. They apply a legal test on a case-by-case approach. Here, the court had to come to the rescue of Ernest and allow him to cash in his deferred payments at an earlier date as it would enhance the quality of his life. He appeared in court on the hearing date and explained to the judge his economic hardship by boldly reiterating what he outlined in his affidavit attached to the court petition.

The Underlying Structured Settlement Agreement had an “Anti-Assignment Clause,” What Happens in Such A Scenario?

A non-assignment clause characterizes a vast majority of structured settlement agreements and limits or bars the payee from transferring payment rights. In the transaction at hand, the defendant’s insurer did not invoke the anti-assignment within the 15 days window after service of the notice. The court treats it as a waiver of the anti-assignment clause. On the other hand, where the annuity issuer seeks to rely on an anti-assignment clause, the court conducts a hearing inter parties and makes a ruling on the merit of the matter.

Structured Settlement Re-Purchasers in the Forefront of the Industry

JG Wentworth will take over your structured settlement payments at a discounted lump sum payout; they always give a top dollar offer for income streams and craft a consumer-friendly agreement, transparent disclosure statement, and rush your case court through court in a trice.

Peachtree Financial Solutions handles the paperwork and ensures judge signs off the deal quickly; they have a large pool of attorneys to act as a personal representative in court and protect your rights.

SenecaOne is a well-known buyer of structured settlements in the US due to their modicum transfer expenses, low discount rate and pay a sizable lump sum. The company leaves no stone unturned to get you a whack of cash in time.…

Source