Lawmakers ask attorney general to probe structured settlement buyouts
Industry advocates say these deals help desperate people get the money they need now. Critics say the firms profit off disability and poverty.
The industry, which began in the 1980s, initially had few restrictions. But about two decades ago, states started passing laws intended to protect vulnerable recipients from what critics called predatory deals. Maryland was one of the first states to do so, inking the Structured Settlement Protection Act in 2000. That law, like most others across the country, called upon county judges to decide whether a deal reflected the seller’s best interests. In 2002, the U.S. Congress passed its own eponymous law, which enacted a steep tax on companies that didn’t seek the approval of a state court.
Van Hollen now questions whether some of those laws are failing. He said such legislation doesn’t specifically reference structured settlement recipients who have mental or behavioral disabilities. “That’s the key distinction there,” he said. “The current laws create some assumption that the people who are entering into these agreements have their full mental capacities and aren’t disabled,” he said.
Slaughter said this isn’t just a local issue. It can also have national consequences. “When the victims run out of that [lump-sum] money, then the rest of us have to pick up the slack,” she said. “It’s another way they’re forced onto public assistance.”
She said she her office hasn’t gotten a response from Lynch yet but is hopeful the attorney general will soon take up the issue.
Terrence McCoy covers poverty, inequality, and social justice. He also writes about solutions to social problems.
Structured settlement buyouts without an Independent Professional Advisor or Structured Settlement Attorney are subject to these types of problems, and why we are focused on education sellers of their rights.
Comments
There are no comments yet.