Rumbin v. Utica Mutual Insurance Company

757 A.2d 526 (2000)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Under the terms of a settlement agreement, P was entitled to receive $52,000 within thirty days of its execution, thirty semiannual payments of $1323.09 beginning on March 6, 1999, and a final lump sum payment of $44,000 on March 6, 2014. P has not claimed that the annuity contract is a contract of adhesion. Approximately six months after the execution of the settlement agreement and the issuance of the annuity, P had become unemployed and faced a mortgage foreclosure action against his home, where he lived with his family. In order to resolve his financial troubles, P decided to sell his right to the annuity payments. P filed a declaratory judgment action seeking court approval to transfer his right to the remaining annuity payments to Wentworth in exchange for a lump sum payment and other consideration. Safeco objected to the assignment, claiming that because the annuity contract contained an antiassignment provision, P.A. 98-238 was inapplicable. D neither appeared at that hearing, nor provided an explanation for its failure to appear, and the trial court issued an order of default for failure to appear against D. The court concluded that P.A. 98-238 invalidated antiassignment provisions and allowed payees to transfer their rights to future payments under structured settlement agreements when the statutory requirements were met. The trial court found that the proposed sale of the annuity payments was in the best interests of P, and was fair and reasonable to all interested parties. The court rejected Safeco's claim concerning the applicability of the antiassignment provision and rendered judgment approving the transfer of the P's annuity payments to Wentworth. Safeco appealed from the trial court's judgment to the Appellate Court.