United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
KIMBERLY C. PRIEST JOHNSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
before the Court is DRB Capital, LLC d/b/a Magnus, LLC's
(“Plaintiff”) Amended Application for Approval of
Transfer of Structured Settlement Annuity Benefits (the
“Application”) (Dkt. 13). After considering the
Application and the arguments presented at the hearing held
on November 28, 2017, the Court finds that Plaintiff's
Application is GRANTED.
November 1, 1996, the District Court for the Sherman Division
of the Eastern District of Texas entered an Agreed Final
Judgment in the case Deborah Wade, Individually and as
Next Friend of Tyler Ross Wade, a Minor v.
Kindercare Learning Centers, Inc. and Timothy Owen
Waggoner; Case No. 4:95-CV-162. In this Agreed Final
Judgment, the Court granted Tyler Ross Wade the following
“Periodic Payments” as personal injury damages
for a tort claim:
commencing 9-1-2008, $750.00 per month for 5 years
commencing 9-1-2008, $7, 500.00 per year for 5 years
commencing 12-1-2008, $7, 500.00 per year for 5 years
commencing 9-1-2013, $1, 667.00 per month for Tyler Ross
Wade's lifetime with the first 30 years guaranteed.
13-1 at 17. The Agreed Final Judgment additionally includes
an “anti-assignability clause, ” which states,
“It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs
acknowledge that the Periodic Payments cannot be accelerated,
deferred, increased, or decreased by the Plaintiffs or any
payee; nor shall the Plaintiffs or any payee have the power
to sell, mortgage, encumber or anticipate the Periodic
Payments or any part thereof by assignment or
otherwise.” Id. The judgment defines
Plaintiffs as “DEBORAH WADE, Individually and as Next
Friend of Tyler Ross Wade, a minor.” Id. at
about August 25, 2017, Tyler Ross Wade (“Mr.
Wade”), who is no longer a minor, willingly and
voluntarily entered into an Absolute Sale and Security
Agreement with Plaintiff, which is a limited liability
company under the laws of the state of Delaware with its
principal place of business in the state of Florida.
See Dkts. 13 at 1; 13-1 at 1-10. In this Absolute
Sale and Security Agreement, Mr. Wade agrees to sell to
Plaintiff a portion of his structured annuity benefits that
were created by the previously discussed Agreed Final
Judgment in Case No. 4:95-CV-162. Specifically, Mr. Wade has
agreed to sell 120 monthly payments of $833.00, each
commencing on or about December 1, 2024, and ending on or
about November 1, 2034, to Plaintiff for a lump sum cash
payment of $37, 001.55.
the Agreed Final Judgment in Case No. 4:95-CV-162, includes
an “antiassignability clause, ” the Issuer of Mr.
Wade's annuity, New York Life Insurance Company, and
Obligor of Mr. Wade's annuity, New York Life Insurance
and Annuity Corporation, have asked Plaintiff to obtain
consent from the Sherman Division of the Eastern District
Courts of Texas for the transfer in the Absolute Sale and
Security Agreement between Mr. Wade and Plaintiff. Because of
this request, the current action was filed by Plaintiff on
October 5, 2017, seeking consent to the transfer of payments.
November 28, 2017, the Court conducted a hearing on
Plaintiff's Application. Both Mr. Wade and counsel for
Plaintiff were in attendance. At the hearing, Plaintiff and
Mr. Wade (collectively, the “Parties”)
represented to the Court that all known, interested parties
were previously notified of the Application and no objections
were raised. Specifically, Plaintiff's counsel
represented that a hearing regarding the Application was held
on October 4, 2017, in the 95th Civil District Court, in
Dallas County, Texas, before Judge Ken Molberg.
Plaintiff's counsel stated that, prior to that October 4,
2017, hearing, notice was given to all interested parties of
the requested transfer of funds, and no objections were
raised. Moreover, no persons or parties appeared at the
November 28, 2017, hearing to state an objection to the
upon the Application, the Parties' representations
regarding the prior hearing on October 4, 2017, the hearing
before the Court on November 28, 2017, and the lack of
objection from any interested party, the Court consents to
the proposed transfer between Plaintiff and Mr. Wade. Having
heard the arguments presented on the record, the Court finds
that Mr. Wade is fully advised of the current value of the
assigned payments and the consequences of making them and
that, now that he has reached the age of majority, he should
be free to assign them as proposed. Additionally, the Court
consents to Plaintiff seeking ...