Opinion
No. CV07 4026340
December 20, 2007
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The plaintiff requests court approval of a transfer of payment rights. Payee, David Mason, receives periodic workers' compensation payments from a settlement. He wishes to assign certain, but not all, of those payments to the plaintiff in exchange for a lump sum payment which he will use to finance a new business venture that he claims will provide him with a viable livelihood. The defendant opposes the transfer on the grounds that workers' compensation payments are not assignable. The plaintiff argues that: (1) Mason has previously assigned certain periodic payments, in 1996 and therefore the defendant is barred from objecting to this transfer; and (2) Connecticut law, specifically 52-225g, allows transfer of workers' compensation, periodic payments. The parties agree that the precise issue raised in this case is one of first impression.
Although there is a dispute as to whether or not Mr. Mason previously assigned payments from his settlement; and whether the defendant previously knew of the assignment and failed to object, there are no disputes regarding to the underlying facts in this case. In 1988 David Mason was shot three times while he was performing his job, repossessing cars. The gun shots left him paralyzed and he is wheelchair bound. Mason has limited means of self-support, and has not been fully employed for almost 20 years. After being shot, Mason made a claim for workers' compensation, which resulted in the settlement which is at issue in this case. In accordance with the terms of the settlement, Mason receives periodic payments: twenty (20) annual payments of $4,000 and monthly payments of $828.00.
Mason would like to assign certain of his periodic payments to the plaintiff, in exchange for a lump sum payment. Specifically, he would like to assign six (6) annual payments and 69 monthly payments. In exchange, Mason would receive from the plaintiff $46,122.00. Mason testified at the hearing that he has retained counsel, who has advised him about this transaction. Mason further testified that he would like to use the money to establish a Petroleum business, which he claims will support him. Mason has already created an LLC, obtained a tax number, rented space, purchased a truck and built a truck. He claims to have identified potential clients and potential sub-contractors.
There is no doubt to this court that Mason has demonstrated serious intent and performed important preliminary work to set up this business venture. Mason explored other means of funding this venture and credibly testified that he found none. Mason also credibly testified that he unsuccessfully pursued other means of self-support.
There are two issues this court must resolve in order to decide this action. First, this court must determine whether the transfer is in the best interest of Mason; and whether it is fair and reasonable pursuant to General Statutes § 52-225. Second, the court must determine whether General Statutes § 31-320 precludes an assignment of payments Mason receives from a Workers' Compensation Settlement. For reasons more fully set forth below this court concludes that the assignment is in the best interest of Mason; is fair and reasonable; and is not precluded by § 31-320.
The plaintiff established that Mason requires this transfer of assets in order to provide for his future. This court finds that Mason will not be able to fully and adequately support himself in the future without a steady stream of income that is more substantial than the amount he currently receives. The plaintiff also established that Mason contemplated all of the implications of the assignment and sought advise about the assignment. The plaintiff further established that Mason considered and attempted other possible alternatives before considering the transfer. And, finally, the transfer will not be of all of the future payments to which Mason is entitled. Therefore, he will still receive periodic payments from his settlement in the future.
The amount that the plaintiff will receive is certainly less than he would receive over time. Travelers has not interposed an objection to the transfer on the basis that it is not fair or reasonable, although it notes in its pre-trial Oppositional papers that the present value of the payments is $68,524.99; and that Mason seeks to transfer all of his annual payments of $4,000, entitling him in the future to only monthly payments of $828. This court concludes, based upon the totality of the evidence that the transfer would be fair and reasonable, if not generous.
Turning to the issue of Workers' Compensation preclusion, this court notes that there are no cases directly on point. However, there are trial court decisions which indicate that since the Workers' Compensation statute is meant to protect the interest of the beneficiary, settlement proceeds may be assigned for that purpose. See, Young v. Young, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. FA 940359928 (March 3, 1995, Shortall, J.); Tyc v. Tyc, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. 92-513300 (July 18, 1994, Kline, S.T.R.) [12 Conn. L. Rptr. 215].
"The workers' compensation act is meant to protect not only the beneficiary of the funds but his family and thereby prevent them from becoming the objects of charity or dependent upon the state; the fact that an order for support or alimony is not a debt within the ordinary meaning of the word and therefore not subject to exemptions statute and that these benefits should be reachable to satisfy the claims of wife and children has been sustained in other jurisdictions. See, Sounders v. Sounders, 246 A. D. 579, 284 N.Y.S. 356 (1935); Donovan v. Donovan, 15 Mass.App. 61, 443 N.E.2d 432 (1982); Dallesandro v. Dallesandro, 110 Misc.2d 346, 442 N.Y.S.2d 400 (1981); Steller v. Steller, 97 N.J.Super. 493, 235 A.2d 476 (1967)." Tyc v. Tyc, supra.
Additionally, the Connecticut Supreme Court has held that an antiassignment provision in a settlement contract did not prevent a person from making a transfer of settlement payments pursuant to § 52-225. Rumbin v. Utica Mutual Ins. Co., 254 Conn. 259 (2000). In Rumbin, the Court concluded that "the antiassignment provision at issue here does not render the assignment of the annuity ineffective, but, instead, gives the annuity issuer . . . the right to recover damages for breach of the antiassignment provisions." Id. at 267.
Though none of the above referenced decisions is directly applicable to this case, the court interprets their holdings to allow a more liberal application of assignment rights pursuant to § 52-225, particularly when ensuring and meeting the needs and welfare of the beneficiary and/or the beneficiary's dependants are the primary goals of the transfer. In this case, the purpose of the workers' compensation settlement was to provide for Mr. Mason. The court finds that the transfer will, in the immediate future, meet the needs of Mr. Mason, better than the payments over time. Additionally, this court finds that Mr. Mason will recommence receiving monthly payments within 69 months. It is for this reason that the court grants the application for transfer.
The court concludes that it need not address the plaintiff's claim that the defendant have waived their right to object to the transfer. Whether and under what conditions Mason previously transferred payments and whether the defendant had notice of it are contested issues, which this court does not resolve.