In re Transfer of Structured Settlement of Anderson
2020 Ohio 5408
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Stone Street Originations, LLC filed an application under the Ohio Structured Settlement Transfer Act to purchase Paul Anderson’s future structured-settlement payments (20 years of $1,500/month beginning Aug. 1, 2035).
- The discounted present value of the transferred payments was $266,939.82; Stone Street offered Anderson a $29,500 lump sum (~11% of the discounted PV). Anderson was 28 years old.
- Champaign County Family/Probate Court summarily denied the application solely on Local Rule 50, which bars approval if the transferor would receive less than 50% of the discounted present value; no hearing was held.
- Stone Street appealed, arguing the court refused to exercise discretion and failed to hold the hearing required by R.C. 2323.584(B)(1).
- The Court of Appeals held the probate court abused its discretion by applying a categorical local rule without considering the facts or holding a hearing, reversed the denial, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the probate court abused its discretion by denying approval based solely on a local rule barring transfers where the transferor receives <50% of discounted PV and by not holding a hearing | Loc.R. 50 prevents the court from exercising the case-specific discretion required by the Transfer Act and denies the mandatory hearing | Loc.R. 50 protects vulnerable payees by creating a bright-line safeguard against unconscionable transfers | Reversed: court abused discretion; a per se 50% rule cannot substitute for the statutorily required fact-specific best-interest analysis and hearing; remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Beasley, 97 N.E.3d 474 (Ohio 2018) (blanket policies rejecting options can constitute an abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (standard defining abuse of discretion)
- State v. Rice, 906 N.E.2d 506 (Ohio App. 2009) (distinction between refusal to exercise discretion and abuse of discretion)
- State v. Jones, 996 N.E.2d 569 (Ohio 2013) (abuse of discretion to apply blanket policy denying relief without case-specific consideration)
- State v. Carter, 706 N.E.2d 409 (Ohio App. 1997) (across-the-board policies that preclude fact-specific consideration are an abuse of discretion)
- Billington v. Cotner, 290 N.E.2d 862 (Ohio Ct. App. 1972) (trial court must exercise discretion when fixing fees; refusal to do so is reviewable as abuse of discretion)