Opinion
No. CV 05-4013293
December 28, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO REARGUE AND/OR FOR RECONSIDERATION
This matter is before the court pursuant to Practice Book Section 11-11 on the application of Settlement Funding, LLC dba Peachtree Settlement Funding (hereinafter "Peachtree"), to reargue and/or for reconsideration of the order of the court (Berger, J.) denying Peachtree's application for approval of a transfer of structured settlement payment rights. The applicant has asked the court to reassign the matter to another judge due to the disability of Judge Berger until February 2006.
The application for approval to transfer of rights to structured settlement payments was denied on the basis that the petitioner had introduced no evidence or otherwise established a factual predicate for the court to make the statutorily mandated finding that the transfer for which the petitioner seeks court approval does not contravene any applicable statute or the order of any court or other government authority. General Statutes § 52-225i(3).
The petitioner has not met its burden. The petitioner in a declaratory judgment action bears the burden of proof. Allstate v. Barron, 269 Conn. 394 (2004). The Court concurs with the prior court that it "cannot speculate . . . as to the possible myriad of published or unpublished court orders or orders of administrative authorities that might be applicable here." Memo. Dec. at 2-3.
The petitioner argues that the court should interpret the statute. Quoting:
The process of statutory interpretation involves a reasoned search for the intention of the legislature . . . In other words, we seek to determine, in a reasoned manner, the meaning of the statutory language as applied to the facts of [the] case, including the question of whether the language actually does apply. In seeking to determine that meaning, we look to the words of the statute itself, to the legislative history and circumstances surrounding its enactment, to the legislative policy it was designed to implement, and to its relationship to existing legislation and common law principles governing the same general subject matter.
Interlude, Inc. v. Skurat, 266 Conn. 130, 139 (2003) (quoting State v. Courchesne, 262 Conn. 537, 577 (2003)). The petitioner also argues that "the court has also admonished against interpreting statutes in a manner that renders them ineffective and unworkable."
The statute applied by the court is clear and unambiguous. "[W]here, as here, the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, courts may not by construction supply omissions in a statute merely because the court feels that it has good reasons for doing so and that the statute would thereby be improved." Hill v. State Employees Retirement Com'n, 83 Conn.App. 599, 851 A.2d 320 (Conn.App. 2004).
The standard of review for approval of a transfer of structured settlement payments clearly and unambiguously require the court to make a finding that finding that the transfer for which the petitioner seeks court approval does not contravene any applicable statute or the order of any court or other government authority. The petitioner and not the court bears the burden of proving that.