by Structured Settlement Watchdog
Standby for the hearing in Amended Petition to Vacate Final Order Granting Application for Structured Settlement Transfer Seneca One, LLC v Shaqira Wilder on November 30, 2016. The venue, Sumter County Florida, was for many years favored by forum shopping settlement purchasers who took advantage of Judge Michelle Morley's courtroom.
According to the Amended Petition to Vacate Final Order Granting Application for Structured Settlement Transfer of Shaqira Wilder in Seneca One, LLC v Shaqira Wilder Sumter County Circuit Court Case 2013 CA000078AXMX filed July 16, 2016:
- Order Was Void Ab Initio because Seneca One violated the 10-Day Disclosure requirement of the Florida Structured Settlement Protection Act. Seneca provided the mandatory disclosure on the same day the transfers agreement was executed. Seeks to vacate per Fla. R Civ. p. 1.540(b)(4).
- Order Was Void Ab Initio because it contravened the Non-Assignability Provision of the Settlement Agreement. Wilder's lawyers cite Rapid Settlements Ltd v Dickerson, 941 So 2d 1275 (Fla 4th DCA 2006), first Providian, llC v Evans, 852 So 2d 908 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
- Seneca's failure to comply with other mandatory Notice Provisions and/or filing provisions of the Act are Additional reasons that the Order Was Void Ab Initio. Seneca failed to notify all interested parties as required by the statute.
- Claim is not time barred because there I no limitation to file a motion to vacate on the basis of voidness.
One of the risks of investing in structured settlement receivables (a/k/a recycled structured settlements and mislabeled secondary market annuities), run the risk of payments stopping if the court order is vacated.
As I alluded to in my September 14, 2016 post Seneca One Hosed Met Life Annuitant in Sumter County with Wild 18.94% Discount Rate, there is much more to this story. Stay tuned.