by Structured Settlement Watchdog

Two Judges’ Heads Are Better Than One?

Structured settlements are often preferred in cases involving minor plaintiffs, as they provide financial security over time. These arrangements typically require court approval during their establishment. In some instances, multiple courts may need to be involved. For example, in a wrongful death case in New York where a minor is the payee, the settlement might be addressed by the Supreme Court, while distribution approval could fall under the jurisdiction of a Surrogate Court judge.

Prophylactic measures to safeguard structured settlement payees became increasingly common following reports of abusive sales practices by certain members of the structured settlement secondary market, some of which garnered attention in both local and national news media. These protective measures included a requirement to adjudicate transfers of structured settlement payment rights in the original court, where the court would likely have greater familiarity with the payee and/or the circumstances surrounding the original settlement.

Moving Right Along…

There might come a time when a minor relocates with their family multiple times for various reasons.

  • Parent change of job
  • Divorce of parents
  • Parent remarriage
  • Rehabilitation or injury to sibling requires specialized care in another states
  • Death of one or both parents
  • Child moves away for advance schooling
  • Child moves for an employment opportunity
  • Marriage
  • Natural Disaster
  • Fire

Underlying Court Approval Required

For example, if you were a minor born in New York and living in Westchester County when your structured settlement was established, but later as an adult you move to Charleston, South Carolina, and choose to sell part of your structured settlement payments, you would need court approval in your current county of residence in South Carolina and also need to secure Underlying Court Approval (UCA) in Westchester County, New York. While this process might seem inconvenient, this “speed bump” is a safeguard against rushing through a transaction when potentially encountering unethical actors in the secondary market.