by Defendant Peachtree Settlement Funding to Exclude Unpleaded Claims From Trial (Docket No. 153) and Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition to this motion (Docket No. 156). At trial, the Court denied Defendants request to exclude such claims, concluding that Defendant had been given fair notice of Plaintiff's intent to pursue these theories. 8 . Plaintiffs’ complaint had also sought to void the Purchase Agreement and deny restitution to Defendant because the agreement allegedly violated the anti-assignment provisions of the settlement agreement and annuity contract, and otherwise applicable law. This argument highlights what is currently a hotly contested issue of law. See, e.g., Piasecki v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. Of Boston, 312 Ill.App.3d 872, 245 Ill.Dec. 340, 728 N.E.2d 71 (2000) (<HOLDING>); Grieve v. General American Life Ins. Co., 58
holding that federal law precludes courts from considering va disability payments in awarding alimony holding assignment effective from letter that identified the parties noted principal amount and amount to become due noted that assignment was made and directed all future payments be made to assignee holding antiassignment clause in structured settlement is enforceable holding a settlement privilege exists as to thirdparty discovery of settlement negotiations holding antiassignment provision precludes assignment of structured settlement payments