by Structured Settlement Watchdog
A decade ago, the reprehensible exploitation of Baltimore’s childhood lead paint victims by Access Funding was exposed in an award-winning Washington Post investigation by Terrence McCoy. The report ultimately prompted sweeping reforms to structured settlement factoring in Maryland and led to the conviction of a factoring company executive, as well as two lawyers—one disbarred and the other suspended.
- Access Funding Scam: Sentences for Boghosian, Smith, and Sud – Structured Settlements 4Real® Blog
- How companies make millions off lead-poisoned, poor blacks – The Washington Post
- CFPB in Stipulated Settlement with Lee Jundanian and Co Over Access Funding Structured Settlement Factoring Scam – Structured Settlements 4Real® Blog
A New “Vintage Point” | Alleged Factoring Company Exploitation of Washington DC resident with 56 IQ,3rd Grade Reading Level subject to New Lawsuit filed Jul 19, 2024 in District of Columbia Superior Court
Sheron Jones, is a fortysomething childhood lead paint victim living in Washington DC, with her Mom and 15 year old daughter. Plaintiff reads at a 3rd grade level. In her adult life, Sheron Jones has only been employed twice for a combined total of less than 6 months. That’s 6 months in 22 plus years as an adult! Source: Complaint (see below)
Sheron Jones has never driven a car and does not have a driver’s license. Her only source of income is Supplemental Social Security Income (SSI) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Source: Ibid
“Her deficits reflect permanent impairment which will pose life long challenges” said an IEP from middle school. Source: Ibid.
A structured settlement, arising out of a lead paint settlement, was established in 1997, with monthly payments for life, increasing at 2%. The payments began in April 1998.
SHERON JONES, 859 51″ Street SE, Washington, DC 20019 Plaintiff v VINTAGE EQUITY GROUP, LLC DAYON ARRINGTON, SUTTONPARK CAPITAL, LLC. Defendants. Civil Action 2024 045225
______________________________________________________________________________
SIDEBAR
If a structured settlement was established in 1997 then part of the latest Complaint’s factual allegations B. #19 is inaccurate and needs to be clarified, namely that if it is/was a structured settlement, Ms. Jones would not have (and cannot have) “received a sum of money to purchase a guaranteed annuity that started on her 19th birthday”.
See actual or Constructive Receipt is Game Over for Structured Settlements (4structures.com) and How Do Structured Settlements Work | Structured Settlements Explained (4structures.com)
DC Structured Settlement Protection Act Definitions § 28 102 (12) “Structured settlement” means an arrangement for periodic payment of damages for personal injury or sickness established by a settlement or judgment in resolution of a tort claim
Implications of an IQ of 56
What Is the Average IQ? Normal Ranges, Chart, Uses, Scores (medicinenet.com)
IQ Test Scale (free-iqtest.net) <———see Bell curve for reference to 56 IQ range
______________________________________________________________________________
Read the Sheron Jones Complaint v Vintage Equity Group, Dayan Arrington and SuttonPark.
- Not only will Vintage Equity anger you, but one must ask how the DC judge failed to protect Ms. Jones under the so-called “Structured Settlement Protection Act“.
- What standards did Vintage Equity Group aspire to in its solicitation and underwriting of structured settelmeng transfers?
Vintage Equity Group filed two petitions in D.C. Superior Court seeking court approval to purchase Ms. Jones’s Periodic Payments pursuant to the DC SSPA (the “Petitions”).
The first petition involved an alleged sale of 280 months’ worth of Ms. Jones’ Periodic Payments (April 3, 2028, through May 3, 2048), totaling $380,257.80, to Vintage for $63,098.58. 29.
The second petition involved an alleged sale of 72 months’ worth of Ms. Jones’s Periodic Payments (April 3, 2022 through March 3, 2028), totaling $87,662.88, to Vintage for $50,021.10.30. The total amount that was to be paid to Ms. Jones based on the two Petitions is $113,119.68.31. Both Petitions and all subsequent court filings reflected an outdated address for Ms. Jones (even though Vintage knew her actual address). As a result, Ms. Jones did not receive any mailed copies of the court filings related to either Petition. Plaintiff alleges that Vintage mailed the notices to an inaccurate address to conceal its actions.
Ms. Jones was not represented by counsel at any time during her interactions with Vintage Equity Group, nor in connection with the Petitions filed in DC Superior Court, according to the Complaint.
The disclosure statements that were filed with the Petitions list “None” under “transfer purportedly were e-signed by Ms. Jones. The Complaint asserts that Ms. Jones did not e-sign any of the documents that were filed with the Court in relation to the Petitions.
Accordiing to the Complaint, Vintage Equity Group also coached Ms. Jones in real time whenever she appeared telephonically before the Court regarding the Petitions. Dayon Arrington went to Ms. Jones’s home, sat next to her on the couch, used his cell phone to dial into the hearings, did not disclose to the Court that he was present with Ms. Jones, and used the mute/unmute feature on his phone to secretly instruct Ms. Jones on how to answer the Court’s line of questions aimed at ascertaining whether the transfer would be in Ms. Jones’s best interest. The phone number used to dial into at least one hearing had a “302” area code, indicating that it was a Delaware phone number. Vintage is headquartered in Delaware. Ms. Jones has never had a phone number with a “302” area code.
Ms. Jones Did Not Understand that She was Selling her Periodic Payments. She received three checks from SuttonPark in the amounts of $47,548.58, $9,500,and $37,771.10, totaling $94,819.68. Ms. Jones did not understand that these checks were
payment for the sale of her Periodic Payments, and she did not take any independent steps to cash or deposit the checks.
On or around October 13, 2021, Mr. Arrington picked Ms. Jones up from her home in Washington, D.C. and drove her to a SunTrust bank branch in Maryland. Upon information and belief, Mr. Arrington told branch employees that he was assisting his
friend, Ms. Jones, with opening a bank account. A bank employee opened a checking account and a savings account for Ms. Jones. Mr Arrington then instructed Ms. Jones to deposit $85,319.68 into the savings account and $9,500 into the checking account.
On or around October 15, 2021, SunTrust sent two emails to Ms. Jones. The first email,received at 11:53am, indicated that her account had been enrolled in SunTrust Digital Banking. The second email, received at 12:5Ipm, stated that biometric authentication had been activated for her mobile banking account and that her account could now be accessed using Face ID, Touch ID, or Fingerprints instead of a username and password. Ms. Jones does not use online or mobile banking, and she did not sign up for SunTrust Digital Banking or activate biometric authentication on this account
On October 16, 2021, SunTrust sent an email to Ms. Jones at 1:37am stating that she had just sent two emails to Ms. Jones regarding Mr. Arrington. Ms. Jones either did not see or was unable to comprehend any of the aforementioned.
She received an important notice regarding her SunTrust savings account: “Overdraft Coverage Acceptance Confirmation.”
On October 18, 2021, the first email, received at 10:43am, sought confirmation that Ms. Jones had “added or
changed the contact info for Dayon Arrington.” The second email, received six minutes later at 10:49am, stated a $1,000 Zelle transfer from Ms. Jones’s SunTrust Bank savings account to Mr. Arrington had finished processing. Ms. Jones did not see or was unable to comprehend the emails she received from SunTrust Bank due to her severe cognitive impairment.
SHERON JONES, 859 51″ Street SE, Washington, DC 20019 Plaintiff v VINTAGE EQUITY GROUP, LLC DAYON ARRINGTON, SUTTONPARK CAPITAL, LLC. Defendants. Civil Action 2024 045225.
Complaint against Vintage Equity, Dayon Arrington and SuttonPark Capital | Summary of Counts
COUNT I: Violation of the District of Columbia’s Structured Settlements Protection
Act of 2018 (“SSPA”), D.C. Code §§ 28A-101 et seq.
(Against Vintage and SuttonPark)
COUNT II: Violation of the D.C. Consumer Protections and Procedures Act
(Against Vintage)
COUNT III: The Contracts are Unenforceable and Should Be Declared Void Because of
Undue Influence
(Against Vintage and SuttonPark)
COUNT IV: Conversion
(Against Mr. Arrington and Vintage)
Plaintiff Sheron Jones seeks the following relief
1.Declare that Defendants’ actions, as described herein, violated the SSPA, D.C. Code §§
28A-101 et seq;
2. Declare that Defendants’ actions, as described herein, violated the CPPA, D.C. Code §
28-3904 (f) & (e-1);
3. Declare that the transfers of Ms. Jones’s Periodic Payments are void as a matter of law
and public policy;
4. Declare that Defendants’ actions, as described herein, constituted conversion;
5. Order equitable relief, including recission of the transfer agreements, restitution, and
disgorgement of any of Defendants’ ill-gotten gains and the proceeds of such, and award
those amounts to Plaintiff;
6. Award Plaintiff damages, including:
a. The greater of (a) treble damages, or (b) statutory damages in the amount of
$1,500 per violation of the CPPA, pursuant to D.C. Code § 28-3904(k)(2)(A);
b. Additional relief as may be necessary to restore Plaintiff’s money, which was
acquired by means of Defendants’ unlawful trade practices under the CPPA,
pursuant to D.C. Code § 28-3905(k)(2)(E);
c. Punitive damages in an amount determined at trial, pursuant to D.C. Code § 28-
3905(k)(2)(C); and
d. Compensatory damages, pursuant to D.C. Common law, for Defendants’
conversion.
7. Award Plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including but not limited to pursuant
to D.C. Code § 28-3905(k)(2)(B);
8. Award Plaintiff pre- and post-judgment interest to the extent allowable; and
9. Award such other relief which the court determines proper, including but not limited to
pursuant to D.C. Code §§ 28-3905(k)(2)(F) and 28A-101 et seq.
Copy of the Complaint in SHERON JONES, 859 51st Street SE, Washington, DC 20019 Plaintiff v VINTAGE EQUITY GROUP, LLC DAYON ARRINGTON, SUTTONPARK CAPITAL, LLC. Defendants. Civil Action 2024 045225
Plaintiff is represented by Courtney Wilkes of Tzedek PC Courtney Wilkes — Tzedek DC
About Tzedek PC Racial Equity Statement — Tzedek DC
Muriel Bowser, Rohit Chopra CFPB Hope you are paying attention!
Last updated February 2, 2026