Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Co. v. Texas Attorney General Child Support Division
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 864
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Lottery Act requires state-debt offsets against prize winnings (466.407/466.4075); 1999 amendments allowed voluntary assignments of future installment payments (466.410) with safeguards and court approval; assignments may not cover payments subject to offsets; DeQueen later held U.C.C. conflict-of-laws rendered Lottery Act restrictions ineffective but subsection (h) remains relevant.
- Warren won a 1994 Lotto Texas prize paid 1994–2013; 1999 assignment to Singer entities and then Great-West (via successive intermediaries) approved by Travis County court; assignments stated payments to be made to assignees and explicitly excluded offsets; no offsets existed against Warren at the time of assignment.
- Warren stopped paying child support in 1999 and 2004; Division later sought to impose offsets against the 2008 and 2009 prize payments already assigned to Great-West; Lottery Commission interpleaded disputed funds; district court granted Division’s motions, Great-West appealed.
- Issue defined: whether Lottery Act permits state-debt offsets against prize payments that have been assigned prior to the offsets arising; the key question is whether assignees can be burdened by post-assignment offsets under 466.407/466.4075 when no offset existed at assignment.
- Court held: Lottery Act does not authorize post-assignment offsets; assignee does not stand to bear later offsets that arise after assignment; grant of summary judgment to Great-West affirmed in part, reversed in part as to interpleaded funds, and remanded for judgment consistent with holding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether offsets may apply post-assignment | Great-West: offsets can only apply to owner at time; post-assignment offsets not allowed | Division: assignee stands in assignor’s shoes for each disbursement; offsets may apply | Offsets not permitted; assignment precludes later offsets against assigned payments |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas Lottery Comm'n v. First State Bank of DeQueen, 325 S.W.3d 628 (Tex.2010) (conflict-of-laws under U.C.C. render Lottery Act restrictions ineffective but do not require disregard of clear text)
- Thweatt v. Jackson, 838 S.W.2d 725 (Tex.App.-Austin 1992) (assignee stands in the assignor’s shoes; rights subject to defenses existing at assignment)
- Texas Mut. Ins. Co. v. Vista Cmty. Med. Ctr., LLP, 275 S.W.3d 538 (Tex.App.-Austin 2008) (assignee rights subject to defenses/offsets that accrued pre-notification)
- Acker v. Texas Water Comm'n, 790 S.W.2d 299 (Tex.1990) (legislative intent and context presumed in statutory construction)
- Shook v. Walden, 304 S.W.3d 910 (Tex.App.-Austin 2010) (presumptions about legislative intent and statutory text relevance)