Trade In Your Structured Settlement Payments For A Whack Of Cash  

Every contract imposes a common law duty to execute duties with due care, reasonable skill, and faithfulness. Negligence in discharging a contractual duty leads to a tort and a breach of contract, and the innocent party may opt to institute a lawsuit predicated on the contract or frame the wrong as a tort. This has blurred the borderline between contract and tort as to the scope of concurrent liability on whether it gives a plaintiff the right of election to sue either in tort or contract or adopt dual culpability. However, the general rule is the claimant can sue in tort except where the parties contract out of tortious liability. A plaintiff who chooses to nail the defendant in tort enjoys remedial advantages due to the availability of a broad range of compensatory damages and less strict rules.

Caroline Grant sued a natural gas company that supplied her consumer gas after they failed to inspect underground pipes that disgorged gas into her house which she inhaled leading to a respiratory condition. The defendant’s negligent omission had been the proximate cause of Mrs. Grant’s injuries. Mrs. Grant died while the lawsuit was still underway, but the company was found liable and had to pay compensation in tort to her daughter Rose Grant. Due to her age, her attorney entered a structured settlement under which she would cash in as a stream of income from the age of eighteen. At 22, she and her husband were no longer babes in the woods. Her husband was the sole breadwinner. But it takes two to tango, her husband became an animal, and she had to sue him for separation after endless barbarian cruelty. Luckily, Rose battled it out and got a job. But her remuneration fell short of clearing off mortgage rates and penalties. Her structured settlement became her only asset in the lottery-like chain of events; she sold it for a whack of cash.

Sell Structured Settlement

Leave No Stone Unturned to Sell at the Highest Bid

Rose could sell her payment rights to structured settlement purchasing companies with visibility online and on air. She contacted about ten settlement companies listed on Fundfirst Capital and received different quotations. Fairfield Funding agreed to pay a lump-sum premium but questioned her on her financial status, credit card score, and change of financial circumstances. When Rose mentioned the impending foreclosure of her matrimonial home, Fairfield agreed to pitch in and acquire her income stream for a one-off cash payment.

Procedural and Substantive Laws Governing a Factoring Deal

Selling your structured settlement requires adherence to a procedural roadmap mandated by the federal legislation and facilitated by state legislation. Structured settlement funding companies file a petition in a county court, serves certain interested parties and makes a list of disclosures. Rose could now know how much she would rake in after the proposed transfer received court approval. The court sanction must be bent upon statutorily-listed factors, including the finding by the judge that the sale is “in the best interests”. The trial court listened to arguments by Fairfield’s attorney and reviewed the transaction to ensure “fair and reasonable” discount rates as well as prevent fleecing on the gross advance amount. The judge entered a court order affirming the factoring transaction as Fairfield Funding had met the threshold test stipulated by the law and given notice to all parties. The annuity issuer would now be liable for remitting transferred payments in line with a court order.

What Information Did Fairfield Funding and the Court Require Her To Supply?

  • Her name, age, residence, and ages of her dependents;
  • A copy of the transfer contract and consumer disclosure statement;
  • The reasons why Rose sought to transfer or factor the right to receiving periodical payments under the annuity
  • A Summary description of:

    Completed factoring deals between her and structured settlement financing companies in the past

    Proposed transfers


What is the Purpose of the “Anti-Assignment” in Rose’s Structured Settlement Annuity Contract?

A structured settlement annuity is a statutory contract that gives parties the freedom to insert any term. At common law, contracting parties can assign rights or obligations flowing from a contract unless a statutory or contractual clause prohibits transfer. Most structured settlement agreements bar the beneficiary from selling the payment rights. Along the same lines, a non-assignment clause consummates the objective of a structured settlement scheme to protect a tort claimant who is naïve, financially uncultured, or who ekes out a living solely from the income stream.

Structured Settlement Purchasing Companies at the Top of the Pack

JG Wentworth kicks off by drafting a custom-made agreement to consummate the transfer of your structured settlement in court; they ensure the insurer does not object the transfer before the court hearing. The company can buy out your payment rights at a premium offer either in part or your entire income stream.

Peachtree Financial Solutions expedites your factoring transaction by following up your deal in court. As a highly regarded buyer of annuities and structured settlement payments, they provide a legal representative to ensure compliance with all laws.

SenecaOne boasts long-drawn-out industry experience to pass you through the judicial net by for the to judge sign off the factoring transaction, they impose a reasonable, just and incredibly low discount rates and transfer charges to capitalize on your lump sum for the highest amount.…

Read More