Reset


Private

civil tentative rulings


The court does not issue tentative rulings on Writs of Attachment, Writs of Possession, Claims of Exemption, Claims of Right to Possession, Motions to Tax Costs After Trial, Motions for New Trial, or Motions to Continue Trial.


Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308 and Local Rule 701, any party opposed to the tentative ruling must notify the court, and other parties, by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of their intention to appear for oral argument. The court's notice must be made by facsimile to 559-733-6774.


Timestamp: 09/03/2015 at 1:49am



The Tentative Rulings for Thursday September 3, 2015 are:

Re:          LVNV Funding LLC v. Arreola

Case No: VCL 123455

Date:       September 3, 2015

Time:       8:30 a.m.

Dept.:      2- The Honorable Lloyd L. Hicks

Motion:   Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate “Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment

Tentative Ruling:  To grant plaintiff’s motion to vacate “Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment.”

This motion to vacate the “Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment” that plaintiff filed with the Court on November 5, 2014 arises out of a judgment that plaintiff obtained against defendant Pablo Arreola on March 30, 2011 in the amount of $3,979.31. 

The Court then issued a Writ of Execution to Los Angeles County under which plaintiff’s counsel submitted a bank levy to Bank of America to collect $5,196.89 from an account that the defendant maintained at that bank. 

Following the collection of these funds from the Bank of America, plaintiff filed its Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment with the Court, but was subsequently advised by Bank of America that due to a clerical error at the bank that the funds that plaintiff received from the bank were not taken from the defendant’s account, but from an account maintained by the defendant’s father at the same bank who is also named Pablo Arreola.

Under CCP §473(d), “The Court may, upon motion of the injured party, or on its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.”

Here, plaintiff LVNV Funding, Inc. acknowledges in its moving papers that the “Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment” that it submitted to the Court on November 5, 2014 was prematurely filed in that the monies it received from the Bank of America to satisfy the judgment it obtained against defendant Pablo Arreola (Jr.) were not taken from the defendant’s Bank of America account but from an account at the same bank maintained by defendant’s father who is also named Pablo Arreola.

Based on the these facts, the Court finds that the “Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment” that LVNV Funding, Inc. filed the Court on November 5, 2014 is void as the product of a clerical error by the Bank of America, and orders under CCP §473(d) that this “Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment” be ordered stricken and vacated.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Re:           In Re: Tina Brewer

Case No: VCU 261932

Date:        September 3, 2015

Time:       8:30 a.m.

Dept.:      2- The Honorable Lloyd L. Hicks

Motion:   Petition of J.G. Wentworth for Approval of Transfer of Structured Settlement Payment Rights

Tentative Ruling:  To deny the petition of J.G. Wentworth for approval of transfer of structured settlement payment rights.

Payee Tina Brewer requests that the Court approve the transfer of 240 monthly payments of $1,100.00 with a three percent annual increase from May 1, 2025 through May 1, 2045 from a structured settlement provided to Ms. Brewer to further a settlement of a personal injury action.  The total payments that petitioner J.G. Wentworth would receive from this transfer total $354,689.16 in exchange for a purchase price of $17,500 to Ms. Brewer.  The purchase price offered to the payee was calculated using a discount rate of 18.13%.

Under Insurance Code sections 10137(a) and 10139.5, the petition is procedurally deficient and the requested transfer is unreasonable and not in the best interests and welfare of either payee Tina Brewer or her two minor children

Ms. Brewer is 44 years old, divorced and has two minor children who are 17 and 9 years old respectively. She is currently unemployed and does not indicate in her declaration as to where she and her children live or what skills she has or efforts made to seek employment.  Nor does she indicate how she provides support to her two minor children.

Ms. Brewer further claims to be experiencing a financial hardship and seeks the funds that she would obtain from this transfer to pay off bills and purchase a car without any indication as to how she would meet the routine expenses involved with owning a car such as maintenance, gas, insurance, etc.
 
The Court also notes that payee purportedly claims to have already received multiple previous transfers of funds from J.G. Wentworth that are presumably the purchase prices for structured settlement payments that were due to payee.  On May 21, 1997, payee received $27,500. On March 27, 1998, payee received $12,078.57.  On August 4, 1998, payee received $7,077.95.  On October 8, 1998, payee received $8,681.87.   On December 30, 1998, payee received $6,719.58. On May 13, 1999, payee received $3,259.59.  But nowhere in Ms. Brewer’s declaration does she indicate how the funds that she claims to have received from the transfer of these structured settlement payments were used.

Then on January 9, 2009, the Kings County Superior Court approved the transfer of 60 monthly payments of $1,852.99 (that increase annually by 3%) from May 1, 2020 to April 1, 2025 for the purchase price of $16,011.98. 

Except for the January 9, 2009 transfer of funds that the Kings County Superior Court approved, payee offers no information that the other transfers of funds that she itemizes in her declaration were the subject of a petition filed under Insurance Code §§10134, et seq. that received court approval as required under Insurance Code §10139.5 before funds from a structured settlement could be transferred to a third party.

On the merits, the petition is denied as it is clear the intent of the underlying settlement is to provide regular and continued support for payee and her dependents as they mature, and the Court finds that it is readily apparent that payee does not have sufficient fiscal responsibility or the ability to properly handle her own financial affairs, based on her claimed need to sell her right (and potentially her children and/or grandchildren’s right) to receive more than $354,000 in projected benefits from 2025 through 2045 in exchange for an immediate lump sum payment of $17,500 so that she can “pay bills and buy a car.” 

Nor does Ms. Brewer state in her declaration why the welfare of her children would be better served by an immediate lump sum of money rather than to provide periodic payments to her children (and potentially grandchildren) that would be provided to her two children from 2025 through 2045.

In sum, given the procedural deficiencies with the petition and payee’s circumstances, age, and apparent fiscal irresponsibility, the court finds the proposed transfer jeopardizes payee’s financial security and the financial security of her children and thus is not fair or reasonable.  Thus, the petition is denied on the merits as not in the payee’s best interests.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.


This concludes the civil tentative rulings



Top