Recent Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Misappropriation of Special Needs Trust Funds
SNTs are usually for the most vulnerable of structured settlement payees as a trusted means of asset protection. SNTs will receive the periodic payments directly from the annuity issuer, and the SNT trustees have a fiduciary duty to spend the trust situs for the benefit of each beneficiary.
March 18, 2024 at 09:31 AM
8 minute read
2023 marked one of the largest and most successful years for the structured settlement industry. See NSSTA Announces Record-Breaking $8.623 Billion Industry Milestone in 2023 | National Structured Settlements Trade Association. According to the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA), of which this author is co-chair of the Legal Committee, a staggering 29,810 people—all of whom victims of injury or survivors of wrongful death victims—received the benefit of a structured settlement. This author has written on the benefits of structured settlement annuities previously, and those benefits are bountiful. Structured settlements provide customized, stable, and most times tax free income to payees. Often, the periodic payments available under a structured settlement annuity will be payable for as long as the payee shall live, providing a protected and steady income stream.
Of the 29,810 people who will benefit from a structured settlement annuity sold in 2023, thousands are likely the beneficiaries of "special needs trusts." Special (or supplemental) needs trusts (SNTs) are a type of trust that allows the beneficiary, who is often times a minor; and incapacitated in some way, the ability to receive the property held in the SNT while, at the same time, maintaining eligibility to receive needs-based government benefits, like Medicaid. See Your Special Needs Trust (SNT) Defined | Special Needs Alliance. Usually irrevocable in nature, most states have established specific statutes under which each SNT must comply. The applicable federal law that governs SNTs is found at 42 U.S.C. Section 1396p(d)(4)(A). SNTs are usually for the most vulnerable of structured settlement payees as a trusted means of asset protection. SNTs will receive the periodic payments directly from the annuity issuer, and the SNT trustees have a fiduciary duty to spend the trust situs for the benefit of each beneficiary. Many SNT trustees are professional trust companies, which those who have set up the SNT in the first place believe will be best suited to ensure that the periodic payments are protected, and funds disbursed only when needed for the best interest of the beneficiaries. The daily needs of SNT beneficiaries span a wide spectrum, but there are some beneficiaries who rely on periodic payments paid through a structured settlement annuity for their very daily survival, i.e., paying for round-the-clock skilled nursing care, life supporting machinery, and even housing and transportation to medical appointments. Arguably, this imposes a heightened burden and duty upon the trustees of SNTs to ensure that the funds in the SNT (and paid to the SNT in the future) are appropriately handled and responsibly disbursed on an as-needed basis only. With pooled SNTs, after a beneficiary agrees to join in the trust, separate subaccounts are maintained for each beneficiary tracking what assets were contributed to the trust, but trust assets are pooled in a master trust account, which in theory allows for better investment opportunities and lower administrative costs. A fundamental distinction is that the beneficiaries' heirs at law will not receive any funds remaining deposited into the pooled SNT at the beneficiaries' death.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWaiving a Liability Insurer’s Right to Subrogation—Is It Appropriate?
The Growing PFAS Morass: Why Insurance Should Cover These Products Liability Claims
9 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Silk Road Founder Ross Ulbricht Has New York Sentence Pardoned by Trump
- 2Settlement Allows Spouses of U.S. Citizens to Reopen Removal Proceedings
- 3CFPB Resolves Flurry of Enforcement Actions in Biden's Final Week
- 4Judge Orders SoCal Edison to Preserve Evidence Relating to Los Angeles Wildfires
- 5Legal Community Luminaries Honored at New York State Bar Association’s Annual Meeting
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250