Court of Appeals Reverses Controversial Fresno, California Decisions

The California Fifth Appellate District Court of Appeal has reversed highly publicized decisions by two Superior Court judges in Fresno County, California involving 321 Henderson Receivables, an affiliate of J.G. Wentworth.  In these cases, the Superior Court judges in Fresno issued quite lengthy, and unusually detailed, orders denying transfers.  Most disconcerting were the courts' suggestions that prior approved transfers could actually be void -- even though a court order had been signed. 

These orders gained significant national attention, even prompting a press release from Standard & Poors (click here to read the press release).

In the first two of several cases to be considered on appeal (known as the Red Tomahawk and Ramos cases), the Court of Appeals reversed the trial courts on procedural grounds.  However, in the Ramos decision the court also reached the issue of "voiding" of a prior approved transfer, specifically finding that:

... disagreement over prior judicial findings does not provide sufficient grounds for a superior court judge to void the final order of another superior court judge.  Thus, absent direct and affirmative evidence of fraud, a prior court approved transfer cannot be attacked as being void under [the California transfer statute] § 10139.5, subdivision (f) or § 10137 or both.  

For the full text of the Red Tomahawk opinion, click here.  For the  Ramos opinion, click here.

Matt Bracy, General Counsel of Settlement Capital Corporation, and Scott Drake of the Legal Broadcast Network discuss this significant case and its implications for structured settlement factoring.  Click below to watch this interview.

If you have any comments or questions about this article, or about structured settlement factoring in general, contact Matt Bracy @ mbracy@setcap.com. 

Casting a Bad Light: Allstate v. Rapid Settlements

On March 9, 2009 the Washington Post picked up on a story about the structured settlement factoring business.  That story concerned a recent US 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals decision deciding a dispute between Rapid Settlements and Allstate over Rapid's use of arbitration clauses in structured settlement transfers.  The court's decision was one thing, but the way the court and the Washington Post chose to characterize the entire structured settlement factoring business was quite another. 

The Allstate Settlement Corp. v. Rapid Settlements, Ltd. is here.   The Washington Post article is found here. 

Watch Scott Drake of the Legal Broadcast Network interview Matt Bracy, General Counsel of Settlement Capital Corporation for more information and commentary on this case and the way it has been covered.

Contact Matt Bracy at mbracy@setcap.com with any questions about this case or the structured settlement factoring industry in general.