On July 05, 2023 a
Exhibit,Appendix
was filed
involving a dispute between
In The Matter Of The Petition Of Apollo Mathers, Llc
For Approval Of Transfer Of Structured Settlement Payment Rights In Accordance With New York Gol 5-1701,
and
Everlake Settlement Corporation,
Regina Perkins,
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 07/05/2023 05:57 PM INDEX NO. 810286/2023E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/05/2023
Exhibit G
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 07/05/2023 05:57 PM INDEX NO. 810286/2023E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/05/2023
l'aBC1016
NewYorkStateAssemWyLogo
~~~~
Tµasday,July13,2004
Ê3ill
Summary -
A11677
SeeBin Text
BEllhow-.Y01KL1219EBGocE111ADemblyHotn
A11677
Smnmary:
SAME AS
Same as S 7639
SDONSOR
RULEV COM
Weprin
COSPN5R
MLTCDNSR
\Amd G,'
S5-170 Gen Ob L
!Relates to the
transfer of
structured
Gettlement
payments.
A11677
Actions:
®D6/18/2004
referred to
06/21'/2004 judiciary
rep6rted
06/22/2004 reEerred to
rules rules
report
06/22/2004 cal.1426
ordered to third
06/22/2004 passed reading rules
assembly Cal.142G
06/22/2004
delivered to
06/22/2004 senate
REFERRED TO RULES
06/22/2004
SUBSTITUTED FOR S7639
06/22/2004 310 READING CAL.1636
06/22/2004 PASSED SENATE
06/22/2004
RETUTWED TO ASSEMBLY
A11677 V otes:
bbate Y
Carrc2z Y Farrell
.1Acampor Y Y Hoyt
Casale Y
Y Ferrara McLaugh Y
!Alfano Y 0acobs Pretlow Y Ted
Y Y
Christe Y Miller Y
Fields Y Gohn Raia Y Th1
Arroyo Y Y
Clark Y Millman Y
Finch Y Ramos Y Tit
Karben Y. Mills ER Reili.ch Y Toc
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 07/05/2023 05:57 PM INDEX NO. 810286/2023E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/05/2023
Auberti Y
Cohe A Y
ubry Y Fit2.pat Y
Cohe M Y Kaufman Y
Bacalle Y Galef Mirones
Colton Y. Kirwan Y Rive
Y Y J Y
Bapclay Y Gantt Y Morelle Y Tok
Conte Y Klein Y Rive PM Y
Barra Y Gianari Y Nesbitt r Ton
Cook Kolb Y nobinso
Barraga Y-.Glick Nolan Y Tow
Y Y Koon Y
Crouch Y Y Galadin Y
Benj'ami Y Gordon Y Norman Y Tow
Cusick Y Lafayet Y Oaka Sanders Y
Bing Y Cottfri Y Y War
Cymbrow Y Lavelle Y Sayward Y
Doyland Y Grannis Y O'Conne Y Net
DelMont Y Lental Scarbor Y
B?noley Y Greene Y O'Donno Y Wei
DestitO Y Litten Schimmi Y
Brennan Y Orodone Y ortiz Y Nep
Diaz 'LM Lopes - Scozzaf
Y r Y Win
Brodsky Y Gromack Y oItloff Y
Diaz R Y Magee Y Seddlo Y
Bri;w/n Y Gunther Y Parment Y Wir
D1Napol Y Magnate Y seminer Y Wri
Burl;ing Y Eayes Y Paulin Y
Dinowit Y Manning Y sidikma Y You
Butl'er Y lieaGtie Y Peoples Y
Eddi·ngt Marxey Y Smith Y
y Higgins veralta Mr
Cabill Y Y Y spano
Englebr Y Mayerso Y Y
calhoun Y Rikind Y Derry Y
Errigo Y McDonal Y stephen Y
Canestr Y liooker Y Pheffer Y
Espaill Y McDonou Y Stranie Y
nooper Y Powell Y
.McEneny Y stringe Y
Prentis Y
Sweeney Y
AE1677 Memo:
TEÈLE OF BIIL: An act to amend
relation to the general
the
transfer·of obligations in
structured law,
settlemiant
90 POSE payments
OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:
is not ConfiÈms
required in that a
court's Yeview of showing of
transfers. proposed "hardship
atructured
settlement
SUMMARY OF
SPECIFIC
se tion PROVISIONS: The bill
5-1/06 of the amends
General subdivi'sion (b) of
showing of "hardship" Obligations Law to
is not confirm that a
structured required in
settlement court's
transfers. review-of proposed
JUSTIFICATION: Prior to 2002, tort claime
promise of could be
payltent over time settled with
(a a
requi.rino "structured
disclosure to the settlement"), without
payee of the
promised payments. thtn present
Additionally, value of the
settlement prior to
payments could 2002, consumers
sell some or receiving
exchange for all their
up front future payments
cash, without prior in
knowing .the court approv al
discount rate used and wi thout
by the
exchange. In purchaser in
2002, to better calculating the
thatensure
informed decisions consumers were
about their making
pasoed the ctructured
Structured settlements, the legislatur
Settlement Protection
requires: (1) Act. The 2002
that the then Act
present value of a promise
payments be of future
disclosed to tort
claimants as a
establishing any structured pre-condition to
rate settlement and (2) requires that certain
disclosures, admonitions to consult with counsel, and
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 07/05/2023 05:57 PM INDEX NO. 810286/2023E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/05/2023
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 appl-ted
yarying (and sometimes inconsistent) atandards reflecting some
possible'confusion regarding_the legislature'9 inunt. in enacting the
aw in 2002, It is believed that some of the confusion and
inconsienency in application of the 2002 mdy 9tem 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 futu.re paymento be disclosed to tort claimants as a precondition t
establishing any structured settlement. Moreover, as or.iginally
iItroduced, the legislation barred transfere of structured settlement
p'ayment ra.ghts absent a court finding that the transfer was necessary
to avoid "imminent hardship." After discussion and
financial
d the "hardchip" receirenmnt was eliminated as a
liberation.
precondition to transfera and the requirement that disclosures be nad
at the front end" was added. As sometimes happens at the end of
session, the bill memo drafted to accompany the criginal legislative
proposal was renumbered und attached to the final legislation without
revision to reflect the significant and substantive 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
thardship,u the bill memo the Act contained the vestigia
accompanying
(and erroneous) assertion that the bill was intended to require a
showing ot hardship.
enactment, several courts have cited the bill memorandutn (and
Since
its erroneous and vestigial suggestion that transfer approvals be
restricted to except.ional instances of "hardshipn) in denying
payment rights sought consumers. In fact, the
transfers of by
intended nor required any cuch thing. As spelled
Legislature neither
the the Legislature intended that
out in the text of statute,
structt.red settlement payments receive clea r and
consumers receiving
dioclocures about the terms of transaction in which
standardized any
right to future payments for upfront cash, tha
woul.d trade their
they
consult with independent counsel about ony
consumers be advised to
be afforded ample opportunity to
transaction, and that consumere
such
trade aware their rights . An adu}L wh
cancel agreement to sell or
any his or
adjudicated incompetent or incapable of handling
has not been
of what is in their
affairs is generally capable determining
her own
to their property and affairs,
own best interests with regard
FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 07/05/2023 05:57 PM INDEX NO. 810286/2023E
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/05/2023
ncluc3ing their
,o
demonstrate atructured
or settlement
afforded prove
the "hardship," payment
admonitions to provided rights,
cancellation, and the the without
consult with having
consumer has
This disclosures counsel., the been
Act is required rights of
by the
intended to 2002 Act.
confusion confirm
stemming frorn those
language in principles and
FISCAL the 2002 Bill
IMPACT: .eliminate the
None Memo.
>FECTIVE.DATE-
Itamediately
Contact·Webma:der
Document Filed Date
July 05, 2023
Case Filing Date
July 05, 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 07/05/2023 05:57 PM INDEX NO. 810286/2023E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/05/2023 Exhibit G FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 07/05/2023 05:57 PM INDEX NO. 810286/2023E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/05/2023 l'aBC1016 NewYorkStateAssemWyLogo ~~~~ Tµasday,July13,2004 Ê3ill Summary - A11677 SeeBin Text BEllhow-.Y01KL1219EBGocE111ADemblyHotn A11677 Smnmary: SAME AS Same as S 7639 SDONSOR RULEV COM Weprin COSPN5R MLTCDNSR \Amd G,' S5-170 Gen Ob L !Relates to the transfer of structured Gettlement payments. A11677 Actions: ®D6/18/2004 referred to 06/21'/2004 judiciary rep6rted 06/22/2004 reEerred to rules rules report 06/22/2004 cal.1426 ordered to third 06/22/2004 passed reading rules assembly Cal.142G 06/22/2004 delivered to 06/22/2004 senate REFERRED TO RULES 06/22/2004 SUBSTITUTED FOR S7639 06/22/2004 310 READING CAL.1636 06/22/2004 PASSED SENATE 06/22/2004 RETUTWED TO ASSEMBLY A11677 V otes: bbate Y Carrc2z Y Farrell .1Acampor Y Y Hoyt Casale Y Y Ferrara McLaugh Y !Alfano Y 0acobs Pretlow Y Ted Y Y Christe Y Miller Y Fields Y Gohn Raia Y Th1 Arroyo Y Y Clark Y Millman Y Finch Y Ramos Y Tit Karben Y. Mills ER Reili.ch Y Toc FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 07/05/2023 05:57 PM INDEX NO. 810286/2023E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/05/2023 Auberti Y Cohe A Y ubry Y Fit2.pat Y Cohe M Y Kaufman Y Bacalle Y Galef Mirones Colton Y. Kirwan Y Rive Y Y J Y Bapclay Y Gantt Y Morelle Y Tok Conte Y Klein Y Rive PM Y Barra Y Gianari Y Nesbitt r Ton Cook Kolb Y nobinso Barraga Y-.Glick Nolan Y Tow Y Y Koon Y Crouch Y Y Galadin Y Benj'ami Y Gordon Y Norman Y Tow Cusick Y Lafayet Y Oaka Sanders Y Bing Y Cottfri Y Y War Cymbrow Y Lavelle Y Sayward Y Doyland Y Grannis Y O'Conne Y Net DelMont Y Lental Scarbor Y B?noley Y Greene Y O'Donno Y Wei DestitO Y Litten Schimmi Y Brennan Y Orodone Y ortiz Y Nep Diaz 'LM Lopes - Scozzaf Y r Y Win Brodsky Y Gromack Y oItloff Y Diaz R Y Magee Y Seddlo Y Bri;w/n Y Gunther Y Parment Y Wir D1Napol Y Magnate Y seminer Y Wri Burl;ing Y Eayes Y Paulin Y Dinowit Y Manning Y sidikma Y You Butl'er Y lieaGtie Y Peoples Y Eddi·ngt Marxey Y Smith Y y Higgins veralta Mr Cabill Y Y Y spano Englebr Y Mayerso Y Y calhoun Y Rikind Y Derry Y Errigo Y McDonal Y stephen Y Canestr Y liooker Y Pheffer Y Espaill Y McDonou Y Stranie Y nooper Y Powell Y .McEneny Y stringe Y Prentis Y Sweeney Y AE1677 Memo: TEÈLE OF BIIL: An act to amend relation to the general the transfer·of obligations in structured law, settlemiant 90 POSE payments OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL: is not ConfiÈms required in that a court's Yeview of showing of transfers. proposed "hardship atructured settlement SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC se tion PROVISIONS: The bill 5-1/06 of the amends General subdivi'sion (b) of showing of "hardship" Obligations Law to is not confirm that a structured required in settlement court's transfers. review-of proposed JUSTIFICATION: Prior to 2002, tort claime promise of could be payltent over time settled with (a a requi.rino "structured disclosure to the settlement"), without payee of the promised payments. thtn present Additionally, value of the settlement prior to payments could 2002, consumers sell some or receiving exchange for all their up front future payments cash, without prior in knowing .the court approv al discount rate used and wi thout by the exchange. In purchaser in 2002, to better calculating the thatensure informed decisions consumers were about their making pasoed the ctructured Structured settlements, the legislatur Settlement Protection requires: (1) Act. The 2002 that the then Act present value of a promise payments be of future disclosed to tort claimants as a establishing any structured pre-condition to rate settlement and (2) requires that certain disclosures, admonitions to consult with counsel, and FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 07/05/2023 05:57 PM INDEX NO. 810286/2023E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/05/2023 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 appl-ted yarying (and sometimes inconsistent) atandards reflecting some possible'confusion regarding_the legislature'9 inunt. in enacting the aw in 2002, It is believed that some of the confusion and inconsienency in application of the 2002 mdy 9tem 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 futu.re paymento be disclosed to tort claimants as a precondition t establishing any structured settlement. Moreover, as or.iginally iItroduced, the legislation barred transfere of structured settlement p'ayment ra.ghts absent a court finding that the transfer was necessary to avoid "imminent hardship." After discussion and financial d the "hardchip" receirenmnt was eliminated as a liberation. precondition to transfera and the requirement that disclosures be nad at the front end" was added. As sometimes happens at the end of session, the bill memo drafted to accompany the criginal legislative proposal was renumbered und attached to the final legislation without revision to reflect the significant and substantive 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 thardship,u the bill memo the Act contained the vestigia accompanying (and erroneous) assertion that the bill was intended to require a showing ot hardship. enactment, several courts have cited the bill memorandutn (and Since its erroneous and vestigial suggestion that transfer approvals be restricted to except.ional instances of "hardshipn) in denying payment rights sought consumers. In fact, the transfers of by intended nor required any cuch thing. As spelled Legislature neither the the Legislature intended that out in the text of statute, structt.red settlement payments receive clea r and consumers receiving dioclocures about the terms of transaction in which standardized any right to future payments for upfront cash, tha woul.d trade their they consult with independent counsel about ony consumers be advised to be afforded ample opportunity to transaction, and that consumere such trade aware their rights . An adu}L wh cancel agreement to sell or any his or adjudicated incompetent or incapable of handling has not been of what is in their affairs is generally capable determining her own to their property and affairs, own best interests with regard FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 07/05/2023 05:57 PM INDEX NO. 810286/2023E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 9 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/05/2023 ncluc3ing their ,o demonstrate atructured or settlement afforded prove the "hardship," payment admonitions to provided rights, cancellation, and the the without consult with having consumer has This disclosures counsel., the been Act is required rights of by the intended to 2002 Act. confusion confirm stemming frorn those language in principles and FISCAL the 2002 Bill IMPACT: .eliminate the None Memo. >FECTIVE.DATE- Itamediately Contact·Webma:der