Financial Security through Structured Settlements

Structured settlements have become a natural part of personal injury and worker’s compensation claims in the United States, according to the National Structured Settlements Trade Association (NSSTA). In 2001, life insurance members of NSSTA wrote more than $6.05 billion of issued annuities as settlement for physical injury claims. This represents a 19 percent increase over 2000.

A structured settlement is the dispersement of money for a legal claim where all or part of the arrangement calls for future periodic payments. The money is paid in regular installments–annually, semi-annually or quarterly–either for a fixed period or for the lifetime of the claimant. Depending on the needs of the individual involved, the structure may also include some immediate payment to cover special damages. The payment is usually made through the purchase of an annuity from a Life Insurance Company.

A structured settlement structure can provide long-term financial security to injury victims and their families through a stream of tax-free payments tailored to their needs. Historically, they were first utilized in Canada and the United States during the 1970s as an alternative to lump-sum payments for injured parties. A structured settlement can also be used in situations involving lottery winnings and other substantial funds.

How a Structured Settlement Works
When a plaintiff settles a case for a large sum of money, the defendant, the plaintiff’s attorney, or a financial planner may propose paying the settlement in installments over time rather than in a single lump sum.

A structured settlement is actually a tradeoff. The individuals who were injured and/or their parents or guardians work with their lawyer and an outside broker to determine future medical and living needs. This includes all upcoming operations, therapy, medical devices and other health care needs. Then, an annuity is purchased and held by an independent third party that makes payments to the person who has been injured. Unlike stock dividends or bank interest, these structured settlement payments are completely tax-free. What’s more, the individual’s annuity grows tax-free.

Pros and Cons

As with anything, there’s a positive and negative side to structure settlements. One significant advantage is tax avoidance. When appropriately set up, a structured settlement may significantly reduce the plaintiff’s tax obligations (as a result of the settlement). Another benefit is that a structured settlement can help ensure a plaintiff has the funds to pay for future care or needs. In other words, a structured settlement can help protect a plaintiff from himself.

Let’s face it: Some people have a hard time managing money, or saying no to friends and family wanting to “share the wealth.” Receiving money in installment can make it last longer.

A downside to structure settlements is the built-in structure (no pun intended). Some people may feel restricted by periodic payments. For example, they may want to buy a new home or other expensive item, yet lack the funds to do so. They can’t borrow against future payments under their settlement, so they’re stuck until their next installment payment arrives.
And from an investment perspective, a structured settlement may not make the most sense for everyone. Many standard investments can provide a greater long-term return than the annuities used in structured settlements. So some people may be better off accepting a lump sum settlement and then investing it for themselves.

Here are some other important points to keep in mind about structured settlements: An injured person with long-term special needs may benefit from having periodic lump sums to purchase medical equipment. Minors may benefit from a structured settlement that provides for certain costs when they’re young–such as educational expenses–instead of during adulthood.

Special Considerations

- Injured parties should be wary of potential exploitation or hazards related to structured settlements. They should carefully consider:

- High Commissions – Annuities can be highly profitable for insurance companies, and they often carry very large commissions. It is important to ensure that the commissions charged in setting up a structured settlement don’t eat up too much of its principal.

- Inflated Value – Sometimes, the defense will overstate the value of a negotiated structured settlement. As a result, the plaintiff winds up with much less than was agreed upon. Plaintiffs should compare the fees and commissions charged for similar settlement packages by a variety of insurance companies to make sure that they’re getting full value.

- Conflict of Interest – There have been situations where the plaintiff’s attorney has referred the client to a particular financial planner to set up a structured settlement, without disclosing he would receive a referral fee. In other cases, the plaintiff’s lawyer has set up a structured settlement on behalf of a client without revealing the annuities are being purchased from his own insurance business. Plaintiffs should know what financial interest their lawyer may have in relation to any financial services being provided or recommended.

- Using Multiple Insurance Companies – It’s advisable to purchase annuities for a structured settlement from several different companies. This offers protection in the event a company that issued annuities for a settlement package goes into bankruptcy and defaults.

Benefits of Selling A Settlement

A structured settlement is specifically designed to meet the needs of the plaintiff at the time it’s created. But what happens if the installment arrangement no longer works for the individual? If you need cash for a large purchase or other expenses, consider selling your structured settlement. Many companies can purchase all or part of your remaining periodic settlement payments for one lump sum. This can boost your cash flow by providing funds you can use immediately to buy a home, pay college tuition, invest in a business or pay off debt.

If you’re considering cashing out your structured settlement, contact your attorney first. Depending on the state you live in, you may have to go to court to get approval for the buyout. About two thirds of states have laws that limit the sale of structured settlements, according to the NSSTA. Tax-free structured settlements are also subject to federal restrictions on their sale to a third party, and some insurance companies won’t assign or transfer annuities to third parties.

When selling your structure settlement, check with multiple

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Comments Off

The History of Student Loans in Bankruptcy

Student loans are basically non-dischargeable, almost everyone knows this. There are some very specific circumstances where even today you can have your student loan debt discharged, but that is a narrow exception that often requires a fight and money to fight. We will discuss the current state of dischargeability in a future post.

The landscape around student loans and bankruptcy has not always been so desolate. Not so long ago these loans were dischargeable. Back when they were dischargeable, the cost of an education was much lower and the total student loan debt was a fraction of what it is now. With student loan debt currently being a 1,200,000,000,000.00 (One Trillion Two Hundred Billion) dollar problem holding people back from purchasing homes or taking part in the broader economy, with a little help they may become dischargeable yet again.

A Brief History.

Student loans really did not pop into existence in America until 1958 under the National Defense Education Act. 1. These loans were offered as a way to encourage students to pursue math and science degrees to keep us competitive with the Soviet Union. 2. In 1965, the Guaranteed Student Loan or Stafford Loan program was initiated under the Johnson Administration. Over time, additional loan programs have come into existence. The necessity of loans for students has become greater as the subsidies universities receive have fallen over time. Take Ohio State for example. In 1990, they received 25% of their budget from the state, as of 2012 that percentage had fallen to 7%. In the absence of state money, universities and colleges have increased tuition to cover the reduction in state money.

The Rising Cost of Education.

The cost of higher education adjusted for inflation over time goes something like this, in 1980 the average cost for tuition room and board at a public institution was $7,587.00 in 2014 dollars and by 2015 it had gone up to $18,943.00 in 2014 dollars. The cost of a higher education in 35 years with inflation accounted for has gone up by 2.5 times. Compare this to inflation adjusted housing costs which have remained nearly unchanged, increasing just 19% from 1980 to 2015 when the bubble and housing crisis is removed. 3. Or compare to wages which, except for the top 25%, have not increased over that same time period. Looking at affordability in terms of minimum wage it is clear that loans are more and more necessary for anyone who wants to attend university or college. In 1981, a minimum wage earner could work full time in the summer and make almost enough to cover their annual college costs, leaving a small amount that they could cobble together from grants, loans, or work during the school year. 4. In 2005, a student earning minimum wage would have to work the entire year and devote all of that money to the cost of their education to afford 1 year of a public college or university. 5. Now think about this, there are approximately 40 million people with student loan debt somewhere over the 1.2 trillion dollar mark. According to studentaid.gov, seven million of those borrowers are in default, that is roughly 18%. Default is defined as being 270 days delinquent on your student loan payments. Once in default, the loan balances increase by 25% and are sent to collections. The collections agencies get a commission on collected debt and are often owned by the very entity that originated the loans, i.e. Sallie Mae.

The Building of the Student Debt Prison.

Prior to 1976 student loans were dischargeable in bankruptcy without any constraints. Of course, if you look back at statistics from that time, there wasn’t much student debt to speak of. When the US Bankruptcy Code was enacted in 1978, the ability to discharge student loans was narrowed. Back then, in order to have your loans discharged, you had to be in repayment for 5 years or prove that such a repayment would constitute an undue hardship. The rationale for narrowing the discharge was that it would damage the student loan system as student debtors flocked to bankruptcy to have their debt discharged. The facts, however, did not support this attack. By 1977 only .3% of student loans had been discharged in bankruptcy. 6. Still, the walls continued to close on student debtors. Up until 1984, only private student loans made by a nonprofit institution of higher education were excepted from discharge. 7. Next with the enactment of the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984, private loans from all nonprofit lenders were excepted from discharge. In 1990, the period of repayment before a discharge could be received was lengthened to 7 years. 8. In 1991, the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 1991 allowed the federal government to garnish up to 10% of disposable pay of defaulted borrowers. 9. In 1993, the Higher Education Amendments of 1992 added income contingent repayment which required payments of 20% of discretionary income to be paid towards Direct Loans. 10. After 25 years of repayment the remaining balance was forgiven. In 1996 the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 allowed Social Security benefit payments to be offset to repay defaulted federal education loans. 11. In 1998, the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 struck the provision allowing education loans to be discharged after 7 years in repayment. 12. In 2001, the US Department of Education began offsetting up to 15% of social security disability and retirement benefits to repay defaulted federal education loans. In 2005, “the law change” as we call it in the Bankruptcy field further narrowed the exception to discharge to include most private student loans. Since private student loans were given protection from discharge in bankruptcy there has been no reduction in the cost of those loans. 13. If the rational for excepting student loans from discharge is that the cost to students to obtain loans would soar, this fact would seem to lay waste to that argument.

In the wake of the slow march towards saddling our students with unshakable debt, the government created a couple of ways to deal with government backed student loans outside of bankruptcy. In 2007 the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 added income based repayment which allows for a smaller repayment than income contingent repayment, 15% of discretionary income and debt forgiveness after 25 years. 14. In 2010, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 created a new version of income-based repayment cutting the monthly payment to 10% of discretionary income with debt forgiveness after 20 years. 15. This new improved income based repayment plan is only for borrowers who have no loans from before 2008. Further, those with loans in default, will not qualify for income based repayment unless they first rehabilitate those loans. If you are interested in seeing if your loans qualify for income based repayment or income contingent repayment please visit student aid dot gov. Unfortunately, none of these programs do anything to deal with private loans, a growing problem currently at around $200,000,000,000.00 (Two Hundred Billion) or around 16% of the total student loan debt.

What Can We Do?

The cost of education is relentlessly marching upward, the need for a higher education to earn a living wage is only becoming greater, and the ability of our graduates to repay these loans is diminishing. Why is the cost of education outpacing inflation by so much? Why are state and local governments reducing funds they used to devote to college students? These are questions that need to be addressed as well. My focus is on the unavailability of a real discharge option and how it is weighing down the rest of the economy. This is a problem. On September 8, 2015, Michigan Congressman Dan Kildee introduced a bill in Congress intended to reduce the burden on students and their families caused by the increasing costs of education and the financial stress of student loans. 16. The proposed legislation would do away with the exception to discharge listed in 11 U.S.C. ยง 523 (a)(8). If you want to have your say on this issue, call your congress person today and let them know that where you stand on H.R. 3451

All the Best,

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off