LLC v. Daisy Gonzalez (2013)

ORDER

The plaintiff has applied for approval of a transfer of a structured settlement pursuant to Connecticut General Statute section 52–225g et seq.   The defendant, Daisy Gonzalez, is the owner of a structured settlement which originally entitled her to payments of $6,008 monthly commencing on or about December 1, 1994 through November 1, 2034, and for life thereafter.

On a prior occasion, Ms. Gonzalez had sold another portion of her structured settlement pursuant to the same statute.   In the matter of Singer Asset Finance Company v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Daisy Gonzalez (HHD CV 10 5034881S), she sold 113 monthly payments of $750 each covering the period from December 1, 2010 through April 1, 2020 and 175 monthly payments of $3,508 each covering the period May 1, 2020 through November 1, 2034.   Those payments had a value over time of approximately $698,650.   Ms. Gonzalez received $100,000 as payment pursuant to an agreement that was dated May 20, 2010.   Documentation contained in this earlier file also indicates that the structured settlement was originally entered into in October of 1994.   At that time, Ms. Gonzalez received $2 million in addition to the payments provided for in the original structured settlement.   The amount of fees and costs deducted from the $2 million payment is not specified.

The instant petition seeks to transfer another portion of that agreement, namely 225 monthly payments of $250 which would commence on September 1, 2013 and end at November 1, 2034.   The aggregate value of those payments is $63,750, the discounted present value is $54,821.31.   The agreement proposed to the court contemplates that Miss Gonzalez would presently receive $12,182.52 in exchange.

“Structured Settlement Protection Acts have been enacted in Connecticut and many other states to protect payees from exploitation by factoring companies.   The various requirements are designed to limit the opportunity for factoring companies to take advantage of payees who may lack an understanding of finance and succumb to pressure to sell payment rights for amounts far below fair market value.”   Settlement Funding, LLC v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company, Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford, Docket Number CV 06 4020064 (Aug. 22, 2006, Berger, J.) [41 Conn. L. Rptr. 876].  “Pursuant to the statute, the court must do more than consider whether or not the transaction is a good financial deal for the transferor, it must determine whether under the circumstances presented it is in the general best interest of the transferor taking into account the welfare and support of her dependents.”   Seneca One, LLC v. Hartford Life Insurance Company, Judicial District of Ansonia/Milford at Milford, Docket.   No. 06 4007406 (February 2, 2007, Robinson, R., J.) [42 Conn. L. Rptr. 824].

With this in mind, the court has reviewed the available reported decisions which have both approved and rejected applications for transfers of structured settlements.   Further, the Court has considered the discount factor and financial consequences of the proposal.   And finally, the court has considered the financial history of this particular individual, to the extent that it is known to the court, as it is described above.

Upon consideration, the court cannot conclude that the proposed transaction is in Miss Gonzalez' best interest.   Accordingly, the application is denied.

Robaina, J.

Robaina, Antonio C., J.