IN THE MATTER OF: J.G. WENTWORTH ORIGINATIONS, LLC

26CV010781: IN THE MATTER OF: J.G. WENTWORTH ORIGINATIONS, LLC 07/22/2026 Hearing on Petition for Approval for Transfer of Payment Rights in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 8D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-7719 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 8D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 1342 1868. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

26CV010781: IN THE MATTER OF: J.G. WENTWORTH ORIGINATIONS, LLC 07/22/2026 Hearing on Petition for Approval for Transfer of Payment Rights in Department 8D

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

*** EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. ALL HEARINGS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Petition for Approval for Transfer of Payment Rights by and between J.G. Wentworth Originations, LLC, and Cheryle Schlegel (“Payee”) pursuant to California Insurance Code section 10134, et seq., is ruled upon as follows.

Payee desires to transfer one payment of $130,000 due March 5, 2032, with a discounted present value of $99,927.95. If the transaction is approved, Payee would receive $75,000. The transaction would result in an effective interest rate of 9.86%.

Payee is 59 years old and married with no minor children. (Schlegel Decl., ¶ 8.) Payee is unemployed, disabled and receiving Social Security. (Ibid.) Payee entered into the original settlement “on about 2019” as compensation for a medical malpractice claim. (Id. ¶ 4.) The settlement was not intended to provide for medical care and treatment or provide for necessary living expenses. (Id. ¶¶ 6–7.) Payee is experiencing a financial hardship and, if approved, will use the money to pay off existing debt, including $25,000 owed to Bank of America. (Id. ¶ 11.) The remainder of the funds will be used towards a car loan and down payment on a house. (Ibid.)

In 2022 Payee completed a prior transaction related to the settlement, in which she transferred $150,000 due March 5, 2027, and $100,000 (out of $230,000) due March 5, 2032, in exchange for a total $158,000. (Schlegel Decl., ¶ 9.) In that matter, Payee declared she would use the money to pay off her house and truck. (Schlegel Dec. 2021 Decl., ¶ 11.)[1] The previous transaction was approved on March 23, 2022.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV010781: IN THE MATTER OF: J.G. WENTWORTH ORIGINATIONS, LLC 07/22/2026 Hearing on Petition for Approval for Transfer of Payment Rights in Department 8D

The Court cannot approve the Petition based on the information currently before the Court because the Petition does not include all required information. The Petition does not appear to state the “amounts and sources” of the payee’s and payee’s spouse’s monthly income and financial resources. (Ins. Code, § 10139.5, subd. (c)(4).)[2] Payee declared in the prior matter that her husband is “now unable to work.” (Schlegel Dec. 2021 Decl., ¶ 11.) Payee’s declaration in the current matter does not describe her spouse’s ability to work. (See Schlegel Decl.)

If Payee’s spouse is dependent upon her, the Court is required to consider that fact as part of its determination. (Ins. Code, § 10139.5.) The amended Purchase Contract submitted by Petitioner is not signed by Payee’s spouse. (Pet., Amend. Exh. A.) Although a spouse is not required by statute to consent to a transfer of settlement money, the Court could consider a dependent spouse’s knowledge of or consent to a transfer as part of the best interest analysis.

Regardless, the Court cannot find the proposed transfer to be in the best interest of Payee. The original settlement provides for two payments: $150,000 on March 5, 2027 and $230,000 on March 5, 2032. (See Pet., Exh. C “Schedule of Benefits”.) Payee sold the entire 2027 payment and $100,000 of the 2032 payment through the prior transaction. The proposed transaction would account for the remaining $130,000 of the 2032 payment, that is, all of Payee’s remaining settlement payments. But Payee declares “I have agreed to sell a portion of my interest in a structured settlement to Petitioner.” (Schlegel Decl., ¶ 3 [emphasis added].)

Payee declares that in the prior transaction “I transferred one lump sum payment of $150,000 due on March 5, 2027 and $230,000 due on March 5, 2032.” (Id. ¶ 9.) However, the prior transaction related to only $100,00 out of the $230,000 due on March 5, 2032. Based on these discrepancies, it is not clear that Payee fully understands the prior transaction, the proposed transaction, or her original settlement.

Payee declared that she would use the funds from the prior transaction, $158,000, to pay off her house and truck. Payee now declares that she will use some of the funds from the proposed transaction as a down payment on a house. The Court lacks information on the disposition of the prior funds and proposed funds in regards to house payments.

Finally, Payee declares that she will use funds from the proposed transaction to pay off existing debt, including $25,000 owed to Bank of America. Paying off existing debt benefits Payee only if the interest rate on existing debt is equal to or higher than the 9.86% effective rate Payee will pay through the proposed transaction or other circumstances justify paying off existing debt. The Court lacks this information.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV010781: IN THE MATTER OF: J.G. WENTWORTH ORIGINATIONS, LLC 07/22/2026 Hearing on Petition for Approval for Transfer of Payment Rights in Department 8D

Accordingly, based on the record before it, the Court cannot approve the transfer requested or find that it is in the best interest of the Payee.

The Petition for Approval for Transfer of Payment Rights is DENIED without prejudice for Payee to apply again with additional supporting evidence.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

[1] The Court takes judicial notice of the prior proceeding, Sacramento County Superior

Court Case No. 34-2021-00312525, In re: J.G. Wentworth Originations, LLC. [2] Petitioner may submit such information at the hearing. (Ins. Code, § 10139.5, subd.

(d).) Nevertheless, such information does not address the further concerns set forth by the Court herein.