Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Structured Settlement Sale topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge approves sale of Johnny Baker Jr.'s structured‑settlement increase in exchange for $17,000 lump sum
Summary
The judge approved Johnny Baker Jr.'s petition to sell future annuity payments for a lump‑sum payment after concluding Baker understood the trade‑off and consented to the transaction.
Get email alerts on the Structured Settlement Sale topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The presiding judge approved Johnny Baker Jr.'s petition to sell future structured‑settlement payments in exchange for a lump sum, after questioning Baker on the payment schedule and confirming he understood the consequences.
The court recorded that Baker had been awarded a structured settlement providing 11 monthly payments of $386.64 beginning June 19, 2030, followed by 156 monthly payments of $398.23 adjusted annually at 3 percent. The judge said, by his calculation, "without including any sort of increase, we come to around $66,376," and asked Baker whether he understood that trading away future increases meant exchanging a larger stream of payments for a smaller lump sum now.
Baker confirmed he was currently receiving about $1,000 a month and said the lump‑sum sale was intended to cover immediate needs including "purchasing a car and moving." The presiding judge repeatedly asked Baker whether he wished to trade future payments for an immediate $17,000 and whether he understood the risk; Baker answered, "At this point in time, yes, sir."
After ensuring Baker understood the terms and that counsel representing the transfer would carve out future $300‑plus increases so Baker would continue to receive roughly $1,000 per month, the judge said, "Alright. I will approve this agreement. It's your money to do with what you want. So we will you if you'll submit an order, mister Kittle, I'll sign off on it."
The judge approved the application on the record and directed counsel to submit a formal order for signature. The court did not independently recalculate the present‑value offer beyond the figures discussed on the record; the approval was conditioned on submission of the signed order.
No creditor objections or competing claims were recorded in the docket call; the court's ruling was limited to the petition before it and did not address any collateral matters.

