In Re Kaufman Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An annuitant sold his future structured settlement payments despite a contractual clause forbidding it. When he later tried to void the sale by invoking that clause, the court held the clause was valid but that he was estopped from using it against the company that paid him.
Legal Significance: A party to a contract (the assignor) cannot invoke a valid anti-assignment clause to defeat a claim by their own assignee. The doctrine of estoppel prevents an assignor from challenging the validity of an assignment they themselves made and benefited from.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
John Kaufman settled a wrongful death claim, receiving a structured settlement that included periodic annuity payments. The settlement agreement, governed by Oklahoma law, contained an anti-assignment clause stating that Kaufman had no “power to sell, mortgage, encumber, or anticipate the future payments… by assignment or otherwise.” Despite this provision, Kaufman contacted J.G. Wentworth, a factoring company, and entered into a purchase agreement. He sold his right to receive sixty monthly payments, totaling $120,525, in exchange for a lump-sum payment of $80,507.26. After his new business failed, Kaufman filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. In the bankruptcy proceedings, Kaufman listed the agreement with Wentworth as an unsecured claim and sought to invalidate the assignment, arguing it was void due to the anti-assignment clause in the original settlement agreement. The bankruptcy court certified two questions to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma regarding the enforceability of the anti-assignment clause and the subsequent purchase agreement.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: May an assignor, after receiving consideration for assigning his contractual right to future payments, invoke a valid anti-assignment clause in the original contract to render the assignment unenforceable against his assignee?
No. Although the anti-assignment clause is valid, the assignor is estopped from Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sun
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
May an assignor, after receiving consideration for assigning his contractual right to future payments, invoke a valid anti-assignment clause in the original contract to render the assignment unenforceable against his assignee?
Conclusion
This case establishes that while parties are free to contract for robust Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, qui
Legal Rule
While an anti-assignment provision is valid if it clearly and unambiguously limits Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut a
Legal Analysis
The court divided its analysis into two parts. First, it addressed the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis au
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Anti-assignment clauses in structured settlements are valid in Oklahoma if they