The following is Part 2 of our 4-Part series on Probate Funding by Steven D. Schroeder, Esq., General Counsel/Sr. Vice President at Inheritance Funding Company, Inc. since 2004. Part 1 can be found here. Comparing Assignments with Loans: Apples Are Not Oranges As previously stated, there has been some recent criticism of the companies engaged in Probate funding.
[1] An Article entitled: “Probate Lending” started and ended with the premise that Probate Assignments are in fact disguised loans and should be regulated as such. Despite the predetermined conclusion by one author, in fact, the law treats Assignments and Loans quite differently and those distinctions are significant.
[2] - What is an Assignment?
An Assignment is a term that may comprehensively cover the transfer of legal title to any kind of property.
Commercial Discount Co. v. Cowen (1941) 18 Cal. 2d 601, 614;
see also In re: Kling (1919) 44 Cal. App. 267, 270, 186 P. 152. When valid consideration is given, the Assignee acquires no greater rights or title than what is assigned. In other words, the Assignee steps in the shoes of the Assignor’s rights, subject to any defenses that an obligor may have against Assignor, prior to Notice of Assignment.
See Parker v. Funk (1921) 185 Cal. 347, 352, 197 P. 83
. See also Cal. Civil Code §1459; Cal. Code of Civil Procedure §369. An Assignment may be oral or written and no special form is necessary provided that the transfer is clearly intended as a present assignment of interest by the Assignor. If only a part of the Assignor’s interest is transferred, it may nevertheless be enforced as an equitable Assignment.
See McDaniel v. Maxwell, (1891) 21 Or. 202, 205, 27 P. 952. It has been held that any expectancy may be assigned or renounced
. See Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Broadhurst 157 Cal. App. 2d 375, 321 P. 2d 75. Similarly, a beneficiary may assign or otherwise transfer his or her interest in an Estate prior to distribution.
See Gold et. al., Cal Civil Practice: Probate and Trust Proceedings (2005) §3:86, p. 3-78. Probate Assignments are those taken prior to the completion of probate administration for which an heir/beneficiary transfers a portion of his/her expected inheritance in the estate in consideration of a cash advance (i.e. the purchase price).
- What is a loan?
A loan agreement is a contract between a borrower and a lender which governs the mutual promises made by each party. There are many types of loan agreements, including but not limited to: “home loans”, “equity loans”, “car loans”, “mortgage loan facilities agreements”, “revolvers”, “term loans” and “working capital loans” just to name a few. In contrast to Assignments, loans do not transfer legal title and instead are contracts in which the borrower pays back money at a later date, together with accrued interest to the lender. A loan creates a debtor and creditor relationship that is not terminated until the sum borrowed plus the agreed upon interest is paid in full.
Milana v. Credit Discount Co. (1945) 27 Cal. 2d 335, 163 P.2d.869. In order to constitute a loan, there must be a contract whereby the lender transfers a sum of money which the borrower agrees to repay
absolutely; together with such additional sums as may be agreed upon for its use.
[3] The nature of a loan transaction, can be inferred from its objective characteristics. Such indicia include: presence or absence of debt instruments, collateral, interest provisions, repayment schedules or deadlines, book entries recording loan balances or interest, payments and any other attributes indicative of an enforceable obligation to repay the sums advance.
Id, citing Fin Hay Realty Co. v. United States 398, F.2d 694, 696 (3d Circ. 1968). Also, unlike Assignments, lenders typically insist upon several credit worthy factors prior to funding. For example, the “borrower” makes representations about his/her character including creditworthiness, cash flow and any collateral that he/she may pledge as security for a loan. These creditworthy representations are taken into consideration because the lender needs to determine under what terms, if any, they are prepared to loan money and whether the borrower has the wherewithal to pay it back, generally within a certain time frame. In cases of Probate Assignments, an Advance Company rarely considers creditworthiness of the Assignee, because it is not he/she who is responsible to satisfy the obligation. That obligation falls upon the Estate or Trust fiduciary. In addition, Probate Assignments cannot be deemed to be a loan if the return is contingent on the happening of some future event, (i.e. Final Distribution).
Altman v. Altman (Ch. 1950) 8 N.J. Super.301, 72 A.2d 536.,
Arneill Ranch v. Petit 64 Cal. App. 3d, 277, 134 Cal. Rptr. 456, 461-463 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976). True Probate Assignments, executed in consideration of an advance, have no time limit for payment, nor do they accrue interest post-funding. Furthermore, an assignee is not required to make periodic interest payments and in the vast majority of cases no payment at all. Moreover, although loans are often secured against real property, Assignments in Probate should not be secured. Estate Property is generally not owned or distributed to the heir at the time the Assignment is executed. A critical distinction between Probate Assignments and loans, is that when an Assignment is executed, there is no
unconditional obligation that the Assigned amount be paid and/or when it might be paid. Once assigned, the Assignor owes no further obligation to the Assignee over those rights sold/assigned. And, the Assignee has no recourse against the Assignee/Heir should the heir’s distributive share be less that what he/she assigns. In other words, to “constitute [a] true loan [] there must have been, at the time the funds were transferred, an
unconditional obligation on the part of the transferee to repay the money, and an unconditional intention on the part of the transferor to secure repayment.”
Geftman v. Comm’r 154 F3rd 61, 68 (3d Cir. 1998)
quoting Haag v. Comm’r 88.T.C. 604, 615-16, 1987 WL 49288 aff’d 855 F. 2d 855 (8
th Cir. 1987). Many jurisdictions in addition to California, recognize that the
absolute right to repayment or some form of security for the debt as the defining characteristics of loan.
[4] While the structure and elements slightly vary, the following is a side by side comparison of some of the basic distinctions of loans and Assignments in Probate Funding:
| Loans | Assignments |
| Tenor: This is the time limit for repaying the loan as well as the interest rate charge. | Tenor: No time limit for payment. No interest accrues. |
| Obligor on the Assignment: The Borrower is contractually obligated to repay. | Assignee on the Assignment: Assignee/Heir does not pay anything. A third party (i.e. administrator pays the Assignment. |
| Recourse: The Borrower is unconditionally obligated. | Recourse: In absence of fraud, the Assignee has no recourse should his interest be less than what is assigned or even $0.00. |
| Interest Payment and Capitalization: The interest rate charge for the loan and time limit for interest payment. It also stipulates conditions under which unpaid Interest will be added to the outstanding loans. | Interest Payment and Capitalization: Interest does not accrue post funding and the Assignment is fixed. |
| Penalties: Late payments are typically subject to penalties and/or trigger default. | Penalties: No payments are due. No Default deadlines for payment imposed on Assignee/Heir. |
| Creditworthiness: Essential for approval | Creditworthiness: Not essential |
| Default: Foreclosure is an option; a borrower could bear default. | Default: No penalty no matter when Assignment is paid. Assignments are not secured. Foreclosure is not an option. |
Moreover, given the uncertain time frame for recovery and absence of recourse against the Assignee/Heir, it would be impossible to assign an interest rate or make a Truth in Lending (“TILA”) disclosure, 15 U.S.C. §1601 (2012). Since the purpose of the TILA is to assure meaningful disclosure, the simplicity of an Assignment eliminates any necessity of making interest rate disclosures as required by interest bearing loans. When the Assignor sells a portion of his/her interest for a fixed sum Assignment, what additional disclosures are necessary? In short, there are many significant differences between Probate Assignments and Loans. Courts and Legislatures throughout the country have recognized these distinctions and have considered them when regulating or providing necessary review over either product.
Stay tuned for Part 3 of our 4-Part series, where we discuss California’s regulation of Probate Funding, and how such regulation can serve as a model for other jurisdictions. Steven D. Schroeder has been General Counsel/Sr. Vice President at Inheritance Funding Company, Inc. since 2004. Active Attorney in good standing, licensed to practice before all Courts in the State of California since 1985 and a Registered Attorney with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. —-
[1] David Horton and Andrea Chandrasenkher, supra (2016) 126 Yale 105-107. Professors Horton and Chandrasekher analogized Litigation Funding to the ancient doctrine of champerty even though acknowledging California has never recognized the doctrine, See e.g. Mathewson v. Fitch, 22 Cal. 86, 95 (1863).
[2] The conclusions in Probate Lending were debunked, by Jeremy Kidd, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Law, Mercer, Probate Funding and the Litigation Funding Debate, See Wealth Strategies Journal, August 14, 2017.
[3] 47 C.J.S. Interest and Usury; Consumer Credit Section 123 (1982).
[4] See
In re Nelson’s Estate (1930) 211, Iowa 168;
Dobb v. Yari, (NJ 1996), 927 F. Supp 814;
Turcotte v. Trevino (1976) 544, S.W. 2d 463; quoting.47 C.J,S. Interest and Usury; Consumer Credit Section 123 (1982); Turcotte v. Trevino 544 S.W.2d 463 (1976), Cherokee Funding, LLC v. Ruth (2017) A17A0132; “…New York recognizes the absolute right of repayment or some form of security for the debt as the defining characteristic of a loan. Its courts have explicitly stated that ‘[f]or a true loan it is essential to provide for repayment absolutely and all events or principal in some way to be secured…’ MoneyForLawsuits VLP v. Row No. 4:10-CV-11537].
Thus, a transaction that neither guarantees the lender an absolute right to repayment nor provides it with security for the debt is not a loan, and as a result, cannot be subject to New York’s usury laws…” (emphasis added). “…In Brewer v. Brewer, 386 Md. 183, 196-197 (2005), the Court of Appeals held that “redistribution agreements are permissible and, so long as they comply with the requirements of basis contract law, neither the personal representative nor the court has any authority to disapprove or veto them. See also
In re: Garcelon’s Estate 38 P. 414, 415 (Cal. 1894), Haydon v. Eldred, 21 S. W.457, 458 (Ky 1929). See
Massey vs. Inheritance Funding Company, Inc. Court of Appeals, 7
th Dist (TX), 07-16-00148-CV.
