Loading…
County Court at Law No. 3's structured-settlement annuity transfer procedure (page last modified May 19, 2015): every annuity sale requires a hearing; filings must state the petitioner's reason for sale, the equivalent interest rate if the sale were a loan, any prior transfers, and attach the final judgment where the annuity arose from a lawsuit settlement; if the petitioner's best interest is not readily apparent the court may appoint an attorney ad litem at the proposed purchaser's expense to investigate and report.
Texas > Tarrant County > County Court at Law No. 3 (civil) — applications to transfer structured-settlement payment rights (annuity sales).
"All annuity sales must meet the following conditions and will require a hearing. FILINGS FOR ANNUITY TRANSFER — All filings must set forth: the Petitioner's reason for sale; the interest percentage rate if the sale were a loan; a statement of any prior transfers by the Petitioner; and a copy of the Final Judgment if the annuity was created as a result of a lawsuit settlement. AD LITEMS — If the Court cannot quickly and easily discern whether the transfer is in the Petitioner's best interest an attorney ad litem may be appointed at the proposed purchaser's expense. The ad litem will investigate the Petitioner's situation and report findings to the Court." (Page last modified May 19, 2015.)
"All annuity sales must meet the following conditions and will require a hearing. FILINGS FOR ANNUITY TRANSFER — All filings must set forth: the Petitioner's reason for sale; the interest percentage rate if the sale were a loan; a statement of any prior transfers by the Petitioner; and a copy of the Final Judgment if the annuity was created as a result of a lawsuit settlement. AD LITEMS — If the C
Reviewer note: Own-site HTML page read in full 2026-09-06 from custody; quoted verbatim; 2015 posting — court-scoped. Composed benchpath-ajr8-tarrant (own-site lane).
G-2026-045-SC required anyone using generative AI to disclose it on the face of the filing and add a scripted certification, on pain of striking, denial of relief or monetary penalties. Rule 2.515(d)(2) and AOSC26-12 preempted it on June 15, 2026, so it could not be enforced — and by August 16, 2026 the Seventh Circuit had removed the order from its published register (no rescission instrument appears there). BenchPath holds the hashed capture as the historical record.
3 verbatim requirements on divisional requirements in ANDREW L. SIEGEL's division.