rights is DENIED, as follows.

According to the present petition, Mr. Jenkins is a 28 year old single man with no children. He was reported to be unemployed as of September 2017 but now claims to have two jobs (“prep cook and delivery driver”) paying him $3,000 per month in addition monthly annuity payments of $1,500 as a result of a personal injury settlement, with claimed monthly expenses of $2,400 including his $1,850 rent payment.

This petition seeks approval for Mr. Jenkins to transfer a multitude of future monthly

and lump sum payments totaling $232,663 with a present value of approximately

$190,020 in exchange for $128,247, representing an effective interest rate of 8.58%.
Mr. Jenkins avers that it will be in the “best interests of [his] family” (even though he is

not married and has no children) to use the proceeds from this transfer to purchase a
home outright (since he does not have “good enough credit to qualify for a traditional

mortgage”).

Mr. Jenkins admits he previously sought approval for a similar transfer of future payments totaling $217,000 in exchange for $125,000. It was represented that Mr. Jenkins would use the proceeds from this earlier proposed transfer ‘to pay off unspecified debts owed to the IRS, buy a home and set up an emergency fund for future medical expenses associated with kidney dysfunction.’ More specifically, Mr. Jenkins averred the following:

I am currently experiencing a financial hardship. … $20,000.00 will be used to pay off back taxes. $30,000.00 will be used as a down payment on a home. $20,000.00 will be saved as an emergency fund and to also purchase furniture for my house. The remaining $30,000.00 will be used to cover all my medical bills…

On 12/5/2017 this court issued a tentative ruling denying this prior petition, finding that it did not make sense to spend well over $30,000 on a house and furniture if Mr. Jenkins were “experiencing a financial hardship” and that he failed to provide any of the requested documentation about the house he intended to buy, his significant medical expenses, and the $20,000 owed for “back taxes.” Coupled with Mr. Jenkins’ apparent inability to manage his finances responsibly, this court concluded that the entirety of the $125,000 sum would be squandered. On 12/6/2017, counsel requested a continuance of the hearing but this earlier petition was voluntarily dismissed before the 1/30/2018 continued hearing date.

For similar reasons, this court finds that the transfer proposed in the present petition will not in Mr. Jenkins’ “best interest,” as required by Insurance Code §10139.5(a)(1) and thus, the present petition must be denied. In particular, as Mr. Jenkins has again failed to provide any details about his significant medical expenses and the $20,000 he owes for “back taxes” and Mr. Jenkins admits he has a poor credit history, the court is again persuaded that substantial proceeds from the present transfer will be squandered and do nothing to advance the best interests of Mr. Jenkins.