On June 28, 2023 a
Exhibit,Appendix
was filed
involving a dispute between
In The Matter Of The Petition Of Apollo Mathers, Llc,
and
Everlake Settlement Corporation,
Gerald Wiggins,
Wilton Reassurance Life Company Of New York,
for Special Proceedings - Other (GOL Section 5-1701 et seq)
in the District Court of Bronx County.
Preview
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2023 03:39 PM INDEX NO. 809963/2023E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2023
Exhibit F
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2023 03:39 PM INDEX NO. 809963/2023E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2023
NewYorkStateAssemblyLogo
Tµesday,
July13, 2004
Bill
Sumrnary -
A11677
BBC1
hLlY01K25103
DecElljAssemblyHotn£
A11677
Summary:
S 4E
AS
Same as S 7G39
SPONSOR
RULES COM
Weprin
COSPNSR
ML>T09NSR
Amd G,'
S5-170 Gen Ob L
;Relates to the
transfer of
structured
settlement
payments.
pÙ1677
Actions:
06/18/2004
referred to
06/21'/2004 judiciary
repórted
D6/22/2004 reEerred to
rules rules
report
06/22/2004 cal.1426
ordered to third
06/22/2004 reading rules
passed cal.142G
06/22/2004 assembly
delivered to
0G/22/2004 senate
REFERRED TO RULES
06/22/2004
SUBSTITUTED FOR
06/22/2004 S7639
3RD READING CAL.1836
06/22/2004 PASSED SBNATE
0G/22/2004
RETURNED TO ASSEMBLY
A11617 V otes:
Abbate Y
Carrezz Y Farrell
Acampor Y Hoyt
Y Y
Casale Y McLaugh Y
Alfano Ferrara Y Pretlow Y Ted
Y dacobs Y
Christe Y Fields Miller Y
Arroyo Y John Raia Y Tha
Clark Y Y Millman
Finch Y Y Ramos
Karben Y Tit
Y. Mills ER Reilich Y Toc
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2023 03:39 PM INDEX NO. 809963/2023E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2023
rage zuis
Auberti Y Cohe A Y
Aubry Y Fitzpat Y
Cohe M Y Kaufman Y
Bacalle Y Galef Mirones Y
Colton Y. Kirwan Rive J
Y Gantt Y Y
Bapclay Y Y Morelle Y Tok
Conte Y glein Y Rive pM Y
Barra Y Giana.ri Y Nesbitt Y Ton
Cook Y- Kolb Y nobinso Y
Barraga Y .Glick Y Nolan Y Tow
Crouch Y Koon Y Galadin Y
BeIjlami Y - Gordon Y Norman Y Tow
Cusick Y Lafayet Y Sanders Y
Bing Y Gottfri Y caka Y War
Cymbrow Y Lavelle Y Sayward Y
Boy>and Y Grannis Y O'Conne Y Wet
DelMont Y Lental Y Scarbor Y
Greene Y O'Donno Y Wei
B?poley Y .Litton
Destito Y schimmi Y
Brennan Y Orodone Y ortiz ^Y Wep
Diaz LM Y Lopes T Scozzaf Y
Y Y ortlOff Y win
Brodsky Diaz Gromack Ma.gee Saddlo
R Y Y Y Wir
BrowI Y Gunther Y Parment Y
DiNapol Y Magnate Y seminer Y Wri
Bu Y Hayes Y Paulin Y
1;ing Dinowit Y Sidikma Y
Y Manning Peoples You
Butler Y IteaGtie Y Y Smith
Eddingt Y Markey Y Y Mr
Cabill Y Biggins Y Peralta Y
Englebr Mayerso Y Spano Y
Y Rikind Perry Y
Calhoun Y Y Stephen
Errigo Y McDonal Y Y
Canestr Y Booker Y Pheffer Y
Espaill Y McDonou Y Stranie Y
nóoper Y Powell Y
.McBneny Y Stringe Y
Prentis Y
sweeney Y
A11677
Memo;
TISLE OF BILL: An act to amend
relation to the general
the
transfer·of obligations in
structured law,
settlement
PUiÈPOSE OR payments
GENERAL IDEA 01
is'not DILL:
required in ConfiÈms that a
court's review of showing of
tr.ansfers. proposed "hardship
atructured
settlement
SUMt4ARY OF
SPECIFIC
se tion PROVISIONS: Yhe bill
5-1~J06 of the amends
General subdivision (b) of
showing of "hardship" Obligations Law to
is not Confirm that a
structured required in
settlement court's review·or
transfers. proposed
TOSTIFICATION: Prior to 2002, tort claims
promise of could be
payTent over time Settled with
(a a
"structured
requiring disclosure to the settlement"),
payee of the without
promised payments. then present
Addrtionally, value of the
settlement prior to
payments could 2002, consumers
sell some or receiving
exchange for all their
up front future paymenes
cash, without prior in
knowing .the discount approval court
rate used and without
bythe
exchange. In purchaser in
2002, to better calculating tne
ensure that
informed decisions consumers were
about their making
passed the ctructured
Structured settlements, the.1egislatur
Settlement
requires. Protection Act. The 2002
(1) that the then Act
present value of a promise
payments be of future
disclosed to tort
claimants as a
establishing any pre-condition to
structured settlement
rate and (2) requires that certain
disclosures, admonitions to concult with counsel, and
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2023 03:39 PM INDEX NO. 809963/2023E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2023
cancellation rights be provided and that court approval be obtained a
pre-condition to any subsequent transfer of structured settlement
payment rights,
The law went·into effect in of. 2'003,
February since then, -courts
reviewing proposed structured settlement transfers have applied
yarying (and sometimes inconsistent) atandards reflecting some
possible'confusion regarding.the legislature'9 iwEm in enacting the
law in 2002, It is believed that some of the confusion and
inconsieGency in application of the 2002 may stem from certain
inaccuracies in the Bill Memo that accompanied the 2002 Act.
The Structured settlement Protection Act, as enacted. was the product
of a three-year legislative discussion. As originally introduced, the
legislation did not require that the then present value of a promise
of future payments be disclosed to tort claimants as a precondition t
eptablishing any structured settlement. Moreover, as or.ic3inally
iItroduced, the legislation barred tranofere of structured settlement
p©ayment ra.9hts absent a court finding that the tansfer was necessary
to avoid "imminent hardship." after discussion and
financial
the "hadchip" requirement was eliminated as a
dÄliberotionc
precondition to transfers and the requirement that disclosures be nad
."at the front end" was added. Ae sometimes happens at the end of
session, the bill memo drafted to accompany the criginal legislative
proposal was renumbered and attached to the final legislation without
revision to reflect the significant and cubstantive differences
between the original proposal and the final bill as enacted. Thus,
while the law as enacted into statute did not require a funding of
"hardship,u the bill memo the Act contained the vestigia
accompanying
(and erroneous) assertion that the bill was intended to require a
showing of hardship,
several courts have cited the bill memoranduin (and
since enactment,
its erroneous and vestigial suggestion that transfer approvals be
restricted to exceptional instances of "hardship") in denying
pavTnent rights sought by consumers, In fact, the
tansfers of
intended nor required any such thing. As spelled
Legislature neither
the the Legislature intended that
out in the text of statute,
structured settlement payments receive clear and
consumers receiving
dioclocures about the termo of transaction in which
standardited any
right to future payments for upfront cash, tha
would trade their
they
consult with independent counsel about ony
consumers be advised to
afforded ample opportunity to
and that consumers be
such transaction,
trade aware their rights. An adult wh
cancel agreement to sell or
any his or
adjudicated incompetent or incapable of handling
has not been
what is in their
affairs is generally capable of determining
her own
regard to their property and affairs,
own best interests with
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2023 03:39 PM INDEX NO. 809963/2023E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2023
inclOding their
o
demonstrate atructured
or settlement
afforded prove payment
the "hardship,"
admonitions to rights, without
eancellation, and the provided the
consult with having
consumer has
This disclosures counsel, the been
Act is required rights of
by the
confusion intended to 2002 Act.
confirm
stemming Erortt those.
language in principles and
FISCAL the
2002 Bill .eliminate the
IMPACTc None Memo.
.
FFECTIVE.DATE· .
Itamediately
Contactivebrna:;Ier
Document Filed Date
June 28, 2023
Case Filing Date
June 28, 2023
Category
Special Proceedings - Other (GOL Section 5-1701 et seq)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2023 03:39 PM INDEX NO. 809963/2023E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2023 Exhibit F FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2023 03:39 PM INDEX NO. 809963/2023E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2023 NewYorkStateAssemblyLogo Tµesday, July13, 2004 Bill Sumrnary - A11677 BBC1 hLlY01K25103 DecElljAssemblyHotn£ A11677 Summary: S 4E AS Same as S 7G39 SPONSOR RULES COM Weprin COSPNSR ML>T09NSR Amd G,' S5-170 Gen Ob L ;Relates to the transfer of structured settlement payments. pÙ1677 Actions: 06/18/2004 referred to 06/21'/2004 judiciary repórted D6/22/2004 reEerred to rules rules report 06/22/2004 cal.1426 ordered to third 06/22/2004 reading rules passed cal.142G 06/22/2004 assembly delivered to 0G/22/2004 senate REFERRED TO RULES 06/22/2004 SUBSTITUTED FOR 06/22/2004 S7639 3RD READING CAL.1836 06/22/2004 PASSED SBNATE 0G/22/2004 RETURNED TO ASSEMBLY A11617 V otes: Abbate Y Carrezz Y Farrell Acampor Y Hoyt Y Y Casale Y McLaugh Y Alfano Ferrara Y Pretlow Y Ted Y dacobs Y Christe Y Fields Miller Y Arroyo Y John Raia Y Tha Clark Y Y Millman Finch Y Y Ramos Karben Y Tit Y. Mills ER Reilich Y Toc FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2023 03:39 PM INDEX NO. 809963/2023E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2023 rage zuis Auberti Y Cohe A Y Aubry Y Fitzpat Y Cohe M Y Kaufman Y Bacalle Y Galef Mirones Y Colton Y. Kirwan Rive J Y Gantt Y Y Bapclay Y Y Morelle Y Tok Conte Y glein Y Rive pM Y Barra Y Giana.ri Y Nesbitt Y Ton Cook Y- Kolb Y nobinso Y Barraga Y .Glick Y Nolan Y Tow Crouch Y Koon Y Galadin Y BeIjlami Y - Gordon Y Norman Y Tow Cusick Y Lafayet Y Sanders Y Bing Y Gottfri Y caka Y War Cymbrow Y Lavelle Y Sayward Y Boy>and Y Grannis Y O'Conne Y Wet DelMont Y Lental Y Scarbor Y Greene Y O'Donno Y Wei B?poley Y .Litton Destito Y schimmi Y Brennan Y Orodone Y ortiz ^Y Wep Diaz LM Y Lopes T Scozzaf Y Y Y ortlOff Y win Brodsky Diaz Gromack Ma.gee Saddlo R Y Y Y Wir BrowI Y Gunther Y Parment Y DiNapol Y Magnate Y seminer Y Wri Bu Y Hayes Y Paulin Y 1;ing Dinowit Y Sidikma Y Y Manning Peoples You Butler Y IteaGtie Y Y Smith Eddingt Y Markey Y Y Mr Cabill Y Biggins Y Peralta Y Englebr Mayerso Y Spano Y Y Rikind Perry Y Calhoun Y Y Stephen Errigo Y McDonal Y Y Canestr Y Booker Y Pheffer Y Espaill Y McDonou Y Stranie Y nóoper Y Powell Y .McBneny Y Stringe Y Prentis Y sweeney Y A11677 Memo; TISLE OF BILL: An act to amend relation to the general the transfer·of obligations in structured law, settlement PUiÈPOSE OR payments GENERAL IDEA 01 is'not DILL: required in ConfiÈms that a court's review of showing of tr.ansfers. proposed "hardship atructured settlement SUMt4ARY OF SPECIFIC se tion PROVISIONS: Yhe bill 5-1~J06 of the amends General subdivision (b) of showing of "hardship" Obligations Law to is not Confirm that a structured required in settlement court's review·or transfers. proposed TOSTIFICATION: Prior to 2002, tort claims promise of could be payTent over time Settled with (a a "structured requiring disclosure to the settlement"), payee of the without promised payments. then present Addrtionally, value of the settlement prior to payments could 2002, consumers sell some or receiving exchange for all their up front future paymenes cash, without prior in knowing .the discount approval court rate used and without bythe exchange. In purchaser in 2002, to better calculating tne ensure that informed decisions consumers were about their making passed the ctructured Structured settlements, the.1egislatur Settlement requires. Protection Act. The 2002 (1) that the then Act present value of a promise payments be of future disclosed to tort claimants as a establishing any pre-condition to structured settlement rate and (2) requires that certain disclosures, admonitions to concult with counsel, and FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2023 03:39 PM INDEX NO. 809963/2023E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2023 cancellation rights be provided and that court approval be obtained a pre-condition to any subsequent transfer of structured settlement payment rights, The law went·into effect in of. 2'003, February since then, -courts reviewing proposed structured settlement transfers have applied yarying (and sometimes inconsistent) atandards reflecting some possible'confusion regarding.the legislature'9 iwEm in enacting the law in 2002, It is believed that some of the confusion and inconsieGency in application of the 2002 may stem from certain inaccuracies in the Bill Memo that accompanied the 2002 Act. The Structured settlement Protection Act, as enacted. was the product of a three-year legislative discussion. As originally introduced, the legislation did not require that the then present value of a promise of future payments be disclosed to tort claimants as a precondition t eptablishing any structured settlement. Moreover, as or.ic3inally iItroduced, the legislation barred tranofere of structured settlement p©ayment ra.9hts absent a court finding that the tansfer was necessary to avoid "imminent hardship." after discussion and financial the "hadchip" requirement was eliminated as a dÄliberotionc precondition to transfers and the requirement that disclosures be nad ."at the front end" was added. Ae sometimes happens at the end of session, the bill memo drafted to accompany the criginal legislative proposal was renumbered and attached to the final legislation without revision to reflect the significant and cubstantive differences between the original proposal and the final bill as enacted. Thus, while the law as enacted into statute did not require a funding of "hardship,u the bill memo the Act contained the vestigia accompanying (and erroneous) assertion that the bill was intended to require a showing of hardship, several courts have cited the bill memoranduin (and since enactment, its erroneous and vestigial suggestion that transfer approvals be restricted to exceptional instances of "hardship") in denying pavTnent rights sought by consumers, In fact, the tansfers of intended nor required any such thing. As spelled Legislature neither the the Legislature intended that out in the text of statute, structured settlement payments receive clear and consumers receiving dioclocures about the termo of transaction in which standardited any right to future payments for upfront cash, tha would trade their they consult with independent counsel about ony consumers be advised to afforded ample opportunity to and that consumers be such transaction, trade aware their rights. An adult wh cancel agreement to sell or any his or adjudicated incompetent or incapable of handling has not been what is in their affairs is generally capable of determining her own regard to their property and affairs, own best interests with FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2023 03:39 PM INDEX NO. 809963/2023E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2023 inclOding their o demonstrate atructured or settlement afforded prove payment the "hardship," admonitions to rights, without eancellation, and the provided the consult with having consumer has This disclosures counsel, the been Act is required rights of by the confusion intended to 2002 Act. confirm stemming Erortt those. language in principles and FISCAL the 2002 Bill .eliminate the IMPACTc None Memo. . FFECTIVE.DATE· . Itamediately Contactivebrna:;Ier