On this week’s podcast, we spoke with Tets Ishikawa of Acasta Europe and Sparkle Capital. Tets described helping to found the small-to-midsize claim funding market in the UK, how the…

In this week’s episode, we spoke with Elizabeth and Elisa, co-founders of Florida-based Consumer Legal Funder, Momentum Funding. The duo shared their thoughts on the industry’s evolution over the past…

In this week’s episode, we spoke with Debenhams Ottaway solicitor Luke Harrison. Luke recently established a panel of litigation funders – including Therium Capital Management, Sparkle Capital, and Ferguson Litigation…

On this week’s podcast, Marius Nasta of UK-based Redress Solutions discusses how the winds of fate brought him into the world of litigation finance, how the industry has evolved over…

The following is a contributed article by Steven D. Schroeder, Esq., General Counsel/Sr. Vice President at Inheritance Funding Company, Inc. since 2004. 

There have been a few recent articles written on the topic of Probate Advances.[i] Probate Advances are available because a handful of companies are willing to assume a risk and provide funding in return for a partial assignment of a beneficiary’s interest in an Estate, and to a lesser extent Trust Proceedings. One critic has conflated Assignments to Loans without a fair analysis of the many differences between the two legal maxims.[ii] This 4-part series expands upon those differences and provides a legal and practical perspective as to why Probate Advances are a useful option for so many.

The following is Part 4 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. Parts 1, 2 & 3 can be found here, here and here.

What are the Risks in Probate Funding?

Similar to California Probate Code 11604, (formerly Cal. Probate Code 1021.1), the Legislature, in enacting Probate Code 11604.5, has specifically indicated that Assignments relative to Probate Advances will not be set aside unless it is clear that the consideration paid is “grossly unreasonable”, at the time the transaction was executed. In fact, the Probate Court can presume the validity of an Assignment, in the absence of any objection raised or evidence submitted to the contrary. See Lynch v. Cox. (1978) 83 Cal. App. 3^rd 296, 147 Cal. Rptr. 861.

On this week’s episode, we sat down with Tim Mayer of London-based Therium. Tim discussed the variety of portfolio financing instruments Therium offers, his role on the ICCA Queen Mary…