The Structural Settlement Protection Act prohibits the transfer of structured settlement payments unless approved by a court after express findings required by General Obligations Law § 5-1706 (a)-(e). ( See, In re 321 Henderson Receivables Origination, LLC, 19 Misc 3d 504 [Sup Ct Queens County 2008] [decision by the undersigned]). The parties to the transfer of structured settlement payments must follow specified statutory procedures to obtain court approval, including, inter alia, disclosures, advice to the transferor concerning independent professional advice, and notice to concerned parties.
(Petition, Exhibit A). Such language explicitly denies the payee (here, Lobello), the power to sell or assign the payments, rendering any purported sale illegal ( see, Singer Asset Fin. Co. v Bachus, 294 AD2d 818, lv denied 98 NY2d 615; C.U. Annuity Serv. Corp. v Young, 281 AD2d 292). The passage of the Structured Settlement Protection Act (General Obligations Law § 5-1701, et seq.; herein SSPA) (including the provision for judicial approval that brings this case before the court) in 2002 did not alter this general law with regard to the enforceability of such restrictions on sale or transfer ( see, Matter of Settlement Capital Corp. [Illescas], NYLJ, Jan. 8, 2004 at 18, col. 3 [Sup Ct, New York County]; Matter of 321 Henderson Receivables Origination, LLC , 19 Misc 3d 504). Nevertheless, the Illescas court approved the proposed transfer, despite the existence of a similar limitation in the underlying settlement agreement, on the ground that the cited language constituted an unreasonable restraint on alienation ( id.).
(Petition, Exhibit A). Such language explicitly denies the payee (here, Lobello), the power to sell or assign the payments, rendering any purported sale illegal ( see, Singer Asset Fin. Co. v.. Bachus, 294 A.D.2d 818 [2002],lv denied98 N.Y.2d 615 [2002];C.U. Annuity Serv. Corp. v. Young, 281 A.D.2d 292 [2001] ). The passage of the Structured Settlement Protection Act (General Obligations Law § 5–1701, et seq.; herein SSPA)(including the provision for judicial approval that brings this case before the court) in 2002 did not alter this general law with regard to the enforceability of such restrictions on sale or transfer ( see, Matter of Settlement Capital Corp. [Illescas], NYLJ, Jan. 8, 2004 at 18, col. 3 [Sup Ct, New York County]; Matter of 321 Henderson Receivables Origination, LLC, 19 Misc.3d 504 [2008] ). Nevertheless, the Illescas court approved the proposed transfer, despite the existence of a similar limitation in the underlying settlement agreement, on the ground that the cited language constituted an unreasonable restraint on alienation ( id.).
For this reason, Cordero's citation to In re 321 Henderson Receivables Origination, LLC , is inapposite: In that case, the state court rejected a proposed transfer agreement despite the annuity issuer's consent where no evidence existed that it was in the beneficiary's best interest. 19 Misc.3d 504, 856 N.Y.S. 2d 817, 817 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2008). But the court did not suggest that it was the annuity issuer's obligation to have investigated the transfer first.
Although a "structured settlement payment right" containing such a non-transferability provision maybe transferable by the waiver of the non-transferability by the obligor, the payee may not waive that prohibition. Mere silence of the obligor by failing to appear in opposition to the petition cannot be determined to be a waiver of the non-transferability language included in the award to the payee (seeIn re 321 Henderson Receivables Origination, LLC , 19 Misc. 3d 504, 856 N.Y.S.2d 817 [Sup. Ct., Queens County, 2008] ).
Although a "structured settlement payment right" containing such a non-transferability provision maybe transferable by the waiver of the non-transferability by the obligor, the payee may not waive that prohibition. Mere silence of the obligor by failing to appear in opposition to the petition cannot be determined to be a waiver of the non-transferability language included in the award to the payee (see In re 321 Henderson Receivables Organization, LLC, 19 Misc 3d 504 [Sup Ct, Queens County, 2008]). This forms a separate basis for denial of the application.
More specifically, the Settlement Agreement & Release states as follows: “[t]he periodic payments to be received by the Plaintiff and/or designated payee pursuant to Sections 2B and 2C are not subject in any manner to anticipation, alienation, sale, transfer, assignment, pledge or encumbrance by Plaintiff and/or designated payee” (Objections, Exhibit 2, § XVI, p 7). It is well-settled that contractual non-assignment provisions in structured settlement agreements are valid and enforceable (C.U. Annuity Service Corp. v. Young, 281 A.D.2d 292 [1st Dept 2001] ; In re 321 Henderson Receivables Origination, LLC [Logan], 19 Misc.3d 504, 506–507 [NY Sup Ct 2008] ). Since Hartford has appeared and asserted its rights under the non-assignment clause in the Settlement Agreement, the non-assignment provision precludes this transfer.
More specifically, the Settlement Agreement & Release state as follows: “[t]he periodic payments to be received by the Plaintiff and/or designated payee pursuant to Sections 2B and 2C are not subject in any manner to anticipation, alienation, sale, transfer, assignment, pledge or encumbrance by Plaintiff and/or designated payee” (Objections, Exhibit 2, § XVI, p. 7). It is well-settled that contractual non-assignment provisions in structured settlement agreements are valid and enforceable (C.U. Annuity Service Corp. v. Young, 281 A.D.2d 2920 [1st Dept 2001]; In re 321 Henderson Receivables Origination, LLC [Logan], 19 Misc.3d 504, 506–507, 856 N.Y.S.2d 817 [NY Sup Ct 2008] ). Since Hartford has appeared and asserted its rights under the non-assignment clause in the Settlement Agreement, the non-assignment provision precludes this proposed transfer.
More specifically, the Settlement Agreement & Release states as follows: "[t]he periodic payments to be received by the Plaintiff and/or designated payee pursuant to Sections 2B and 2C are not subject in any manner to anticipation, alienation, sale, transfer, assignment, pledge or encumbrance by Plaintiff and/or designated payee" (Objections, Exhibit 2, § XVI, p 7). It is well-settled that contractual non-assignment provisions in structured settlement agreements are valid and enforceable (C.U. Annuity Service Corp. v Young, 281 AD2d 292 [1st Dept 2001]; In re 321 Henderson Receivables Origination, LLC [Logan], 19 Misc 3d 504, 506-507 [NY Sup Ct 2008]). Since Hartford has appeared and asserted its rights under the non-assignment clause in the Settlement Agreement, the non-assignment provision precludes this transfer.
More specifically, the Settlement Agreement & Release state as follows: "[t]he periodic payments to be received by the Plaintiff and/or designated payee pursuant to Sections 2B and 2C are not subject in any manner to anticipation, alienation, sale, transfer, assignment, pledge or encumbrance by Plaintiff and/or designated payee" (Objections, Exhibit 2, § XVI, p 7). It is well-settled that contractual non-assignment provisions in structured settlement agreements are valid and enforceable (C.U. Annuity Service Corp. v Young, 281 AD2d 2920 [1st Dept 2001]; In re 321 Henderson Receivables Origination, LLC [Logan], 19 Misc 3d 504, 506-507 [NY Sup Ct 2008]). Since Hartford has appeared and asserted its rights under the non-assignment clause in the Settlement Agreement, the non-assignment provision precludes this proposed transfer.