Assignment of Future Rights: Everything You Need to Know

An assignment of future rights is when a person transfers his/her contractual rights and obligations to someone else. 3 min read updated on January 01, 2024

An assignment of future rights is when a person transfers his/her contractual rights and obligations to someone else. This transfer completely confers all of the rights to receive benefits under the contract.

However, if at the time of the assignment there is only a mere possibility or expectation that a future right will arise, the assignment of the future interest will be invalid. The interest in the property assigned must exist and be vested at the time of the assignment. In order to make an assignment valid, the thing assigned must be the product, growth, or increase of property on which the assignor holds a present vested interest.

Money that has been substantially earned on a contract can be assigned. If the benefits, future earnings, or other future interest assigned has not yet accrued, or the assignor has not yet performed his/her part of the contract, the assignment may still be valid. Future earnings or crops may not be a mere possibility.

  • An owner of farmland may sell the crops that will grow on his own land but may not sell the crops that will grow on someone else’s land. Unless he has a present vested interest in that land of another. A right which is expected to arise in the future upon a contract which existed at the time of assignment can be assigned.
  • An anticipated future right under an executory contract can be assigned.
  • An assignment of wages made in reference to a contract of employment not in existence at the time of assignment is not valid.
  • An assignment of future wages where there is no contract for services is invalid.
  • A person can assign his/her earnings under an existing contract for service.
  • A contract to perform a personal skill cannot be assigned.
  • The money due on a contract involving personal skill or service or a confidential relationship can be assigned.
  • An assignment of future earnings from a certain employment or trade has been treated as an assignment of wages under an existing contract of employment. This is because the possibility of future earnings is coupled with an interest. There is the existence of a vested right.
  • Chose in action, except in torts, is assignable. a. A chose in action is the right to bring an action to recover a debt, money, or thing.

An assignment of wages to be earned in the future under an existing employment agreement, even though the employment is for an indefinite time, is not against public policy and is valid if made for valuable consideration, in good faith, and without fraud.

According to Restatement of the Law, Second, Contracts, “[a]n assignment of a right to payment expected to arise out of an existing employment or other continuing business relationship is effective in the same way as an assignment of an existing right.”

However, “a purported assignment of a right expected to arise under a contract not in existence, operates only as a promise to assign the right when it arises and as a power to enforce it.”

Although an executory contract is not assignable, once the contract has been executed to the extent that nothing remains to be done except the payment of money by one of the parties to the other, the claim becomes a chose in action which is assignable.

Supreme Court

What happens when you have a present assignment (or at least a contractual obligation to assign) of invention rights that don’t exist at the time of the assignment (aka “future invention rights”)?

The Supreme Court suggests it is the factual record that will answer this question. They look to:

  • The chronological order in which the assignment and the activities occurred
  • When a party received funding for the research completed
  • When the research activities were carried out after signing anything
  • Relative to the invention rights at issue, how much were those rights based on the federally funded research
  • How much were they based on the research activities carried out by the other party

If the factual record is complex or unclear, it will be difficult for a court to make a decision.

If you need help with assignment of future rights, you can post your legal need on UpCounsel’s marketplace. UpCounsel accepts only the top 5 percent of lawyers to its site. Lawyers on UpCounsel come from law schools such as Harvard Law and Yale Law and average 14 years of legal experience, including work with or on behalf of companies like Google, Menlo Ventures, and Airbnb.

Hire the top business lawyers and save up to 60% on legal fees

Content Approved by UpCounsel

  • Assignment Legal Definition
  • Assignment Law
  • Legal Assignment
  • Assignment of Rights and Obligations Under a Contract
  • Assignment of Rights Example
  • Assignment Contract Law
  • Assignment Of Contracts
  • Consent to Assignment
  • What Is the Definition of Assigns
  • Assignment and Novation Agreement: What You Need to Know

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government, request access.

Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs.

If you are human user receiving this message, we can add your IP address to a set of IPs that can access FederalRegister.gov & eCFR.gov; complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". This process will be necessary for each IP address you wish to access the site from, requests are valid for approximately one quarter (three months) after which the process may need to be repeated.

An official website of the United States government.

If you want to request a wider IP range, first request access for your current IP, and then use the "Site Feedback" button found in the lower left-hand side to make the request.

Advocate logo2

Assignment of claims

An untraditional approach to combining the claims of plaintiffs; how it differs from class actions, joinder, consolidation, relation and coordination

A large class of plaintiffs engages you to bring a common action against a defendant or set of defendants. As counsel, you resolve to combine the plaintiffs’ various claims into a single lawsuit. In this article, we touch on some of the traditional approaches, such as a class action, joinder, consolidation, relation, and coordination. To that list, we add as an approach the assignment of claims, a procedural vehicle validated by the United States Supreme Court, but not typically employed to combine the claims of numerous plaintiffs.

Class actions

In Hansberry v. Lee (1940) 311 U.S. 32, the United States Supreme Court explained that “[t]he class suit was an invention of equity to enable it to proceed to a decree in suits where the number of those interested in the subject of the litigation is so great that their joinder as parties in conformity to the usual rules of procedure is impracticable. Courts are not infrequently called upon to proceed with causes in which the number of those interested in the litigation is so great as to make difficult or impossible the joinder of all because some are not within the jurisdiction or because their whereabouts is unknown or where if all were made parties to the suit its continued abatement by the death of some would prevent or unduly delay a decree. In such cases where the interests of those not joined are of the same class as the interests of those who are, and where it is considered that the latter fairly represent the former in the prosecution of the litigation of the issues in which all have a common interest, the court will proceed to a decree.” ( Id. at pp. 41-42.)

In California’s state courts, class actions are authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 382, which applies when the issue is “‘one of a common or general interest, of many persons, or when the parties are numerous, and it is impracticable to bring them all before the court.’” ( Noel v. Thrifty Payless, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 955, 968; see also, e.g., Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.760-3.771.) “The party advocating class treatment must demonstrate the existence of an ascertainable and sufficiently numerous class, a well-defined community of interest, and substantial benefits from certification that render proceeding as a class superior to the alternatives.” ( Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1021.) “The community of interest requirement involves three factors: ‘(1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class.’” ( Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 429, 435; see Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq. [Consumers Legal Remedies Act]; cf. Fed. Rules Civ.Proc., rule 23(a) [prerequisites for federal class action].)

Parties, acting as co-plaintiffs, can also obtain economies of scale by joining their claims in a single lawsuit. Under California’s permissive joinder statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 378 (section 378), individuals may join in one action as plaintiffs if the following conditions are met:

(a)(1) They assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative, in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all these persons will arise in the action; or

(2) They have a claim, right, or interest adverse to the defendant in the property or controversy which is the subject of the action.

(b) It is not necessary that each plaintiff be interested as to every cause of action or as to all relief prayed for. Judgment may be given for one or more of the plaintiffs according to their respective right to relief.

This strategy of joining multiple persons in one action has been referred to as a “mass action” in some decisions involving numerous plaintiffs. (See Aghaji v. Bank of America, N.A. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1113; Petersen v. Bank of America Corp . (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 238, 240 ( Petersen ); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B) [federal definition of “mass action”].)

In Petersen , for example, 965 plaintiffs who borrowed money from Countrywide Financial Corporation in the mid-2000’s banded together and filed a single lawsuit against Countrywide and related entities. ( Petersen , supra , 232 Cal.App.4th at pp.  242-243.) The plaintiffs alleged Countrywide had developed a strategy to increase its profits by misrepresenting the loan terms and using captive real estate appraisers to provide dishonest appraisals that inflated home prices and induced borrowers to take loans Countrywide knew they could not afford. ( Id. at p. 241.) The plaintiffs alleged Countrywide had no intent to keep these loans, but to bundle and sell them on the secondary market to unsuspecting investors who would bear the risk the borrowers could not repay. ( Id. at pp. 241, 245.) Countrywide and the related defendants demurred on the ground of misjoinder of the plaintiffs in violation of section 378. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed all plaintiffs except the one whose name appeared first in the caption. ( Id . at p. 247.) The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for further proceedings. ( Id . at p. 256.)

Petersen resolved two questions. First, it concluded the operative pleading alleged wrongs arising out of “‘the same . . . series of transactions’” that would entail litigation of at least one common question of law or fact. ( Petersen, supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at p. 241.) The appellate court noted the individual damages among the 965 plaintiffs would vary widely, but the question of liability provided a basis for joining the claims in a single action. ( Id. at p. 253.) Second, the appellate court concluded “California’s procedures governing permissive joinder are up to the task of managing mass actions like this one.” ( Id. at p. 242.)

Consolidation

Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (a) provides that, “[w]hen actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” (See also Fed. Rules Civ.Proc., rule 42.)

There are two types of consolidation. The first is a consolidation for purposes of trial only, when the actions remain otherwise separate. The second is a complete consolidation or consolidation for all purposes, when the actions are merged into a single proceeding under one case number and result in only one verdict or set of findings and one judgment. ( Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147 ( Hamilton ).)

Consolidation is designed to promote trial convenience and economy by avoiding duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to the various actions. (4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Pleadings, § 341, p. 470.) Unless all parties in the involved cases stipulate, consolidation requires a written, noticed motion (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a); Sutter Health Uninsured Pricing Cases (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 495, 514), and is subject to the trial court’s discretion. ( Hamilton, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 1147.)

In a procedure somewhat similar to consolidation, under California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a), a pending civil action may be related to other civil actions (whether still pending or already resolved by dismissal or judgment) if the matters “[a]rise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact” or “[a]re likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges.” ( Id. , rule 3.300(a)(2), (4).) An order to relate cases may be made only after service of a notice on all parties that identifies the potentially related cases. No written motion is required. ( Id ., rule 3.300(h)(1).) The Judicial Council provides a standard form for this purpose. When a trial court agrees the cases listed in the notice are related, all are typically assigned to the trial judge in whose department the first case was filed. ( Id ., rule 3.300(h)(1)(A).)

Related cases are not consolidated cases. Related cases maintain their separate identities but are heard by the same trial judge. Consolidated cases, in contrast, essentially merge and proceed under a single case number.

Coordination

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 404, the Chairperson of the Judicial Council is authorized to coordinate actions filed in different courts that share common questions of fact or law. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.500 et seq.) The principles underlying coordination are similar to those that govern consolidation of actions filed in a single court. (See Pesses v. Superior Court (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 117, 123; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1407 [complex and multidistrict litigation].)

Thus, for example, in McGhan Med. Corp. v. Superior Court (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 804 ( McGhan ), the plaintiffs petitioned for coordination of 300 to 600 breast implant cases pending in 20 different counties. Coordination was denied because the motion judge found that common questions did not predominate “in that the cases involve[d] different implants, different designs, different warnings, different defendants, different theories of defect, different modes of failure, and different injuries.” ( Id. at p. 808.) Among other factors, the trial court concluded that it was impractical to send hundreds of cases to a single county and that the benefits of coordination could be best achieved by voluntary cooperation among the judges in the counties where the cases were pending. ( Id. at p. 808, fn. 2.)

The Court of Appeal reversed in an interlocutory proceeding, ruling the trial court had misconceived the requirements of a coordinated proceeding. ( McGhan, supra, 11 Cal.App.4th at p. 811.) As the appellate court explained, Code of Civil Procedure section 404.7 gives the Judicial Council great flexibility and broad discretion over the procedure in coordinated actions. ( Id. at p. 812.) Thus, on balance, the coordinating judge would be better off confronting the coordination drawbacks (including difficulties arising from unique cases, discovery difficulties, multiple trials, the necessity of travel, and occasional delay) because the likely benefits (efficient discovery and motion practice) were so much greater. ( Id. at pp. 812-814.)

Civil Code section 954 states “[a] thing in action, arising out of the violation of a right of property, or out of an obligation, may be transferred by the owner.” The term “thing in action” means “a right to recover money or other personal property by a judicial proceeding.” (Civ. Code, § 953.) California’s Supreme Court has summarized these provisions by stating: “A cause of action is transferable, that is, assignable, by its owner if it arises out of a legal obligation or a violation of a property right. . . .” ( Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 993, 1003.) The enactment of Civil Code sections 953 and 954 lifted many restrictions on assignability of causes of action. ( Wikstrom v. Yolo Fliers Club (1929) 206 Cal. 461, 464; AMCO Ins. Co. v. All Solutions Ins. Agency, LLC (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 883, 891 ( AMCO ).)

Thus, California’s statutes establish the general rule that causes of action are assignable. ( AMCO, supra , 244 Cal.App.4th at pp. 891-892.) This general rule of assignability applies to causes of action arising out of a wrong involving injury to personal or real property. ( Time Out, LLC v. Youabian, Inc. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1009; see also, e.g., Bush v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1374, 1381 [“‘assignability of things [in action] is now the rule; nonassignability, the exception. . .’”].)

Although the assignment of claims on behalf of others to an assignee, or group of assignees, is not unique, it has not typically been used as a procedural vehicle for combining the claims of numerous plaintiffs. But, that’s not to say it can’t be done.

In fact, the United States Supreme Court has sanctioned such an approach. In Sprint Communications Co., L.P. v. APCC Services, Inc. (2008) 554 U.S. 269 ( Sprint ), approximately 1,400 payphone operators assigned legal title to their claims for amounts due from Sprint, AT&T, and other long-distance carriers to a group of collection firms described as “aggregators.” ( Id. at p. 272.) The legal issue presented to the United States Supreme Court was whether the assignees had standing to pursue the claims in federal court even though they had promised to remit the proceeds of the litigation to the assignor. ( Id . at p. 271.) The Court concluded the assignees had standing.

In support of its conclusion, the Court recognized the long-standing right to assign lawsuits:

. . . [C]ourts have long found ways to allow assignees to bring suit; that where assignment is at issue, courts — both before and after the founding — have always permitted the party with legal title alone to bring suit; and that there is a strong tradition specifically of suits by assignees for collection. We find this history and precedent ‘well nigh conclusive’ in respect to the issue before us: Lawsuits by assignees, including assignees for collection only, are ‘cases and controversies of the sort traditionally amenable to, and resolved by, the judicial process.’

( Sprint , supra , 554 U.S . at p. 285.)

On this basis, the Court concluded:

Petitioners have not offered any convincing reason why we should depart from the historical tradition of suits by assignees, including assignees for collection. In any event, we find that the assignees before us satisfy the Article III standing requirements articulated in more modern decisions of this Court.

( Sprint , supra , 554 U.S at pp. 285-286.)

The Court also considered the argument that the aggregators were attempting to circumvent the class-action requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. ( Sprint, supra, 554 U.S. at pp. 290-291.) The Court rejected this argument as a barrier to aggregation by assignment on the grounds that (1) class actions were permissive, not mandatory, and (2) “class actions constitute but one of several methods for bringing about aggregation of claims, i.e., they are but one of several methods by which multiple similarly situated parties get similar claims resolved at one time and in one federal forum. [Citations.]” ( Id. at p. 291.)

Granted, Sprint arose in the context of Article III, a “prudential standing” analysis. However, in reaching its decision that assignees had standing, the Court relied significantly on three California state decisions addressing assignment of rights under California law. (See Sprint, supra, 554 U.S. at pp. 294-296.)

Under California law, assignment of claims is not a panacea. Not all claims can be assigned. In California, assignment is not allowed for tort causes of action based on “wrongs done to the person, the reputation or the feelings of an injured party,” including “causes of action for slander, assault and battery, negligent personal injuries, seduction, breach of marriage promise, and malicious prosecution.” ( AMCO, supra , 244 Cal.App.4th at p. 892 [exceptions to assignment also include “legal malpractice claims and certain types of fraud claims”].) Other assignments are statutorily prohibited. (See, e.g., Civ. Code, § 2985.1 [regulating assignment of real property sales contracts]; Gov. Code, § 8880.325 [state lottery prizes not assignable].)

Likewise, because a right of action cannot be split, a partial assignment will require the joinder of the partial assignor as an indispensable party. (See, e.g., Bank of the Orient v. Superior Court (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 588, 595 [“[W]here . . . there has been a partial assignment all parties claiming an interest in the assignment must be joined as plaintiffs . . . ”]; 4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, Pleadings, § 131(2), p. 198 [“If the assignor has made only a partial assignment, the assignor remains beneficially interested in the claim and the assignee cannot sue alone”].)

That said, California’s rules of law regarding standing and assignments do not prohibit an assignee’s aggregation of a large number of claims against a single defendant or multiple defendants into a single lawsuit. To the contrary, no limitations or conditions on this type of aggregation of assigned claims is imposed from other rules of law, such as California’s compulsory joinder statute. (See Sprint , supra , 554 U.S. at p. 292 [to address practical problems that might arise because aggregators, not payphone operators, were suing, district “court might grant a motion to join the payphone operators to the case as ‘required’ parties” under Fed. Rules Civ.Proc., rule 19].)

There are many procedural approaches to evaluate when seeking to combine the claims of multiple plaintiffs. Class actions and joinders are more traditional methods that trial counsel rely on to bring claims together. Although a largely unexplored procedural approach, assignment appears to be an expedient way of combining the claims of numerous plaintiffs. It avoids the legal requirements imposed for class actions and joinders, and it sidesteps a trial judge’s discretion regarding whether to consolidate, relate, or coordinate actions. Indeed, under the right circumstances, an assignment of claims might provide a means of bypassing class action waivers in arbitration agreements. Perhaps an assignment of claims should be added to the mix of considerations when deciding how to bring a case involving numerous plaintiffs with similar claims against a common defendant or set of defendants.

Judith Posner

Judith Posner is an attorney at Benedon & Serlin, LLP , a boutique appellate law firm.

Gerald Serlin

Gerald Serlin is an attorney at Benedon & Serlin, LLP , a boutique appellate law firm.

Subject Matter Index

Copyright © 2024 by the author. For reprint permission, contact the publisher: Advocate Magazine

  • Featured Articles
  • Recent Issues
  • Advertising
  • Contributors Writer's Guidelines
  • Search Advanced Search

logo

  • assignments basic law

Assignments: The Basic Law

The assignment of a right or obligation is a common contractual event under the law and the right to assign (or prohibition against assignments) is found in the majority of agreements, leases and business structural documents created in the United States.

As with many terms commonly used, people are familiar with the term but often are not aware or fully aware of what the terms entail. The concept of assignment of rights and obligations is one of those simple concepts with wide ranging ramifications in the contractual and business context and the law imposes severe restrictions on the validity and effect of assignment in many instances. Clear contractual provisions concerning assignments and rights should be in every document and structure created and this article will outline why such drafting is essential for the creation of appropriate and effective contracts and structures.

The reader should first read the article on Limited Liability Entities in the United States and Contracts since the information in those articles will be assumed in this article.

Basic Definitions and Concepts:

An assignment is the transfer of rights held by one party called the “assignor” to another party called the “assignee.” The legal nature of the assignment and the contractual terms of the agreement between the parties determines some additional rights and liabilities that accompany the assignment. The assignment of rights under a contract usually completely transfers the rights to the assignee to receive the benefits accruing under the contract. Ordinarily, the term assignment is limited to the transfer of rights that are intangible, like contractual rights and rights connected with property. Merchants Service Co. v. Small Claims Court , 35 Cal. 2d 109, 113-114 (Cal. 1950).

An assignment will generally be permitted under the law unless there is an express prohibition against assignment in the underlying contract or lease. Where assignments are permitted, the assignor need not consult the other party to the contract but may merely assign the rights at that time. However, an assignment cannot have any adverse effect on the duties of the other party to the contract, nor can it diminish the chance of the other party receiving complete performance. The assignor normally remains liable unless there is an agreement to the contrary by the other party to the contract.

The effect of a valid assignment is to remove privity between the assignor and the obligor and create privity between the obligor and the assignee. Privity is usually defined as a direct and immediate contractual relationship. See Merchants case above.

Further, for the assignment to be effective in most jurisdictions, it must occur in the present. One does not normally assign a future right; the assignment vests immediate rights and obligations.

No specific language is required to create an assignment so long as the assignor makes clear his/her intent to assign identified contractual rights to the assignee. Since expensive litigation can erupt from ambiguous or vague language, obtaining the correct verbiage is vital. An agreement must manifest the intent to transfer rights and can either be oral or in writing and the rights assigned must be certain.

Note that an assignment of an interest is the transfer of some identifiable property, claim, or right from the assignor to the assignee. The assignment operates to transfer to the assignee all of the rights, title, or interest of the assignor in the thing assigned. A transfer of all rights, title, and interests conveys everything that the assignor owned in the thing assigned and the assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor. Knott v. McDonald’s Corp ., 985 F. Supp. 1222 (N.D. Cal. 1997)

The parties must intend to effectuate an assignment at the time of the transfer, although no particular language or procedure is necessary. As long ago as the case of National Reserve Co. v. Metropolitan Trust Co ., 17 Cal. 2d 827 (Cal. 1941), the court held that in determining what rights or interests pass under an assignment, the intention of the parties as manifested in the instrument is controlling.

The intent of the parties to an assignment is a question of fact to be derived not only from the instrument executed by the parties but also from the surrounding circumstances. When there is no writing to evidence the intention to transfer some identifiable property, claim, or right, it is necessary to scrutinize the surrounding circumstances and parties’ acts to ascertain their intentions. Strosberg v. Brauvin Realty Servs., 295 Ill. App. 3d 17 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1998)

The general rule applicable to assignments of choses in action is that an assignment, unless there is a contract to the contrary, carries with it all securities held by the assignor as collateral to the claim and all rights incidental thereto and vests in the assignee the equitable title to such collateral securities and incidental rights. An unqualified assignment of a contract or chose in action, however, with no indication of the intent of the parties, vests in the assignee the assigned contract or chose and all rights and remedies incidental thereto.

More examples: In Strosberg v. Brauvin Realty Servs ., 295 Ill. App. 3d 17 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1998), the court held that the assignee of a party to a subordination agreement is entitled to the benefits and is subject to the burdens of the agreement. In Florida E. C. R. Co. v. Eno , 99 Fla. 887 (Fla. 1930), the court held that the mere assignment of all sums due in and of itself creates no different or other liability of the owner to the assignee than that which existed from the owner to the assignor.

And note that even though an assignment vests in the assignee all rights, remedies, and contingent benefits which are incidental to the thing assigned, those which are personal to the assignor and for his sole benefit are not assigned. Rasp v. Hidden Valley Lake, Inc ., 519 N.E.2d 153, 158 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988). Thus, if the underlying agreement provides that a service can only be provided to X, X cannot assign that right to Y.

Novation Compared to Assignment:

Although the difference between a novation and an assignment may appear narrow, it is an essential one. “Novation is a act whereby one party transfers all its obligations and benefits under a contract to a third party.” In a novation, a third party successfully substitutes the original party as a party to the contract. “When a contract is novated, the other contracting party must be left in the same position he was in prior to the novation being made.”

A sublease is the transfer when a tenant retains some right of reentry onto the leased premises. However, if the tenant transfers the entire leasehold estate, retaining no right of reentry or other reversionary interest, then the transfer is an assignment. The assignor is normally also removed from liability to the landlord only if the landlord consents or allowed that right in the lease. In a sublease, the original tenant is not released from the obligations of the original lease.

Equitable Assignments:

An equitable assignment is one in which one has a future interest and is not valid at law but valid in a court of equity. In National Bank of Republic v. United Sec. Life Ins. & Trust Co. , 17 App. D.C. 112 (D.C. Cir. 1900), the court held that to constitute an equitable assignment of a chose in action, the following has to occur generally: anything said written or done, in pursuance of an agreement and for valuable consideration, or in consideration of an antecedent debt, to place a chose in action or fund out of the control of the owner, and appropriate it to or in favor of another person, amounts to an equitable assignment. Thus, an agreement, between a debtor and a creditor, that the debt shall be paid out of a specific fund going to the debtor may operate as an equitable assignment.

In Egyptian Navigation Co. v. Baker Invs. Corp. , 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30804 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2008), the court stated that an equitable assignment occurs under English law when an assignor, with an intent to transfer his/her right to a chose in action, informs the assignee about the right so transferred.

An executory agreement or a declaration of trust are also equitable assignments if unenforceable as assignments by a court of law but enforceable by a court of equity exercising sound discretion according to the circumstances of the case. Since California combines courts of equity and courts of law, the same court would hear arguments as to whether an equitable assignment had occurred. Quite often, such relief is granted to avoid fraud or unjust enrichment.

Note that obtaining an assignment through fraudulent means invalidates the assignment. Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters. It vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments. Walker v. Rich , 79 Cal. App. 139 (Cal. App. 1926). If an assignment is made with the fraudulent intent to delay, hinder, and defraud creditors, then it is void as fraudulent in fact. See our article on Transfers to Defraud Creditors .

But note that the motives that prompted an assignor to make the transfer will be considered as immaterial and will constitute no defense to an action by the assignee, if an assignment is considered as valid in all other respects.

Enforceability of Assignments:

Whether a right under a contract is capable of being transferred is determined by the law of the place where the contract was entered into. The validity and effect of an assignment is determined by the law of the place of assignment. The validity of an assignment of a contractual right is governed by the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the assignment and the parties.

In some jurisdictions, the traditional conflict of laws rules governing assignments has been rejected and the law of the place having the most significant contacts with the assignment applies. In Downs v. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co ., 14 N.Y.2d 266 (N.Y. 1964), a wife and her husband separated and the wife obtained a judgment of separation from the husband in New York. The judgment required the husband to pay a certain yearly sum to the wife. The husband assigned 50 percent of his future salary, wages, and earnings to the wife. The agreement authorized the employer to make such payments to the wife.

After the husband moved from New York, the wife learned that he was employed by an employer in Massachusetts. She sent the proper notice and demanded payment under the agreement. The employer refused and the wife brought an action for enforcement. The court observed that Massachusetts did not prohibit assignment of the husband’s wages. Moreover, Massachusetts law was not controlling because New York had the most significant relationship with the assignment. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the wife.

Therefore, the validity of an assignment is determined by looking to the law of the forum with the most significant relationship to the assignment itself. To determine the applicable law of assignments, the court must look to the law of the state which is most significantly related to the principal issue before it.

Assignment of Contractual Rights:

Generally, the law allows the assignment of a contractual right unless the substitution of rights would materially change the duty of the obligor, materially increase the burden or risk imposed on the obligor by the contract, materially impair the chance of obtaining return performance, or materially reduce the value of the performance to the obligor. Restat 2d of Contracts, § 317(2)(a). This presumes that the underlying agreement is silent on the right to assign.

If the contract specifically precludes assignment, the contractual right is not assignable. Whether a contract is assignable is a matter of contractual intent and one must look to the language used by the parties to discern that intent.

In the absence of an express provision to the contrary, the rights and duties under a bilateral executory contract that does not involve personal skill, trust, or confidence may be assigned without the consent of the other party. But note that an assignment is invalid if it would materially alter the other party’s duties and responsibilities. Once an assignment is effective, the assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor and assumes all of assignor’s rights. Hence, after a valid assignment, the assignor’s right to performance is extinguished, transferred to assignee, and the assignee possesses the same rights, benefits, and remedies assignor once possessed. Robert Lamb Hart Planners & Architects v. Evergreen, Ltd. , 787 F. Supp. 753 (S.D. Ohio 1992).

On the other hand, an assignee’s right against the obligor is subject to “all of the limitations of the assignor’s right, all defenses thereto, and all set-offs and counterclaims which would have been available against the assignor had there been no assignment, provided that these defenses and set-offs are based on facts existing at the time of the assignment.” See Robert Lamb , case, above.

The power of the contract to restrict assignment is broad. Usually, contractual provisions that restrict assignment of the contract without the consent of the obligor are valid and enforceable, even when there is statutory authorization for the assignment. The restriction of the power to assign is often ineffective unless the restriction is expressly and precisely stated. Anti-assignment clauses are effective only if they contain clear, unambiguous language of prohibition. Anti-assignment clauses protect only the obligor and do not affect the transaction between the assignee and assignor.

Usually, a prohibition against the assignment of a contract does not prevent an assignment of the right to receive payments due, unless circumstances indicate the contrary. Moreover, the contracting parties cannot, by a mere non-assignment provision, prevent the effectual alienation of the right to money which becomes due under the contract.

A contract provision prohibiting or restricting an assignment may be waived, or a party may so act as to be estopped from objecting to the assignment, such as by effectively ratifying the assignment. The power to void an assignment made in violation of an anti-assignment clause may be waived either before or after the assignment. See our article on Contracts.

Noncompete Clauses and Assignments:

Of critical import to most buyers of businesses is the ability to ensure that key employees of the business being purchased cannot start a competing company. Some states strictly limit such clauses, some do allow them. California does restrict noncompete clauses, only allowing them under certain circumstances. A common question in those states that do allow them is whether such rights can be assigned to a new party, such as the buyer of the buyer.

A covenant not to compete, also called a non-competitive clause, is a formal agreement prohibiting one party from performing similar work or business within a designated area for a specified amount of time. This type of clause is generally included in contracts between employer and employee and contracts between buyer and seller of a business.

Many workers sign a covenant not to compete as part of the paperwork required for employment. It may be a separate document similar to a non-disclosure agreement, or buried within a number of other clauses in a contract. A covenant not to compete is generally legal and enforceable, although there are some exceptions and restrictions.

Whenever a company recruits skilled employees, it invests a significant amount of time and training. For example, it often takes years before a research chemist or a design engineer develops a workable knowledge of a company’s product line, including trade secrets and highly sensitive information. Once an employee gains this knowledge and experience, however, all sorts of things can happen. The employee could work for the company until retirement, accept a better offer from a competing company or start up his or her own business.

A covenant not to compete may cover a number of potential issues between employers and former employees. Many companies spend years developing a local base of customers or clients. It is important that this customer base not fall into the hands of local competitors. When an employee signs a covenant not to compete, he or she usually agrees not to use insider knowledge of the company’s customer base to disadvantage the company. The covenant not to compete often defines a broad geographical area considered off-limits to former employees, possibly tens or hundreds of miles.

Another area of concern covered by a covenant not to compete is a potential ‘brain drain’. Some high-level former employees may seek to recruit others from the same company to create new competition. Retention of employees, especially those with unique skills or proprietary knowledge, is vital for most companies, so a covenant not to compete may spell out definite restrictions on the hiring or recruiting of employees.

A covenant not to compete may also define a specific amount of time before a former employee can seek employment in a similar field. Many companies offer a substantial severance package to make sure former employees are financially solvent until the terms of the covenant not to compete have been met.

Because the use of a covenant not to compete can be controversial, a handful of states, including California, have largely banned this type of contractual language. The legal enforcement of these agreements falls on individual states, and many have sided with the employee during arbitration or litigation. A covenant not to compete must be reasonable and specific, with defined time periods and coverage areas. If the agreement gives the company too much power over former employees or is ambiguous, state courts may declare it to be overbroad and therefore unenforceable. In such case, the employee would be free to pursue any employment opportunity, including working for a direct competitor or starting up a new company of his or her own.

It has been held that an employee’s covenant not to compete is assignable where one business is transferred to another, that a merger does not constitute an assignment of a covenant not to compete, and that a covenant not to compete is enforceable by a successor to the employer where the assignment does not create an added burden of employment or other disadvantage to the employee. However, in some states such as Hawaii, it has also been held that a covenant not to compete is not assignable and under various statutes for various reasons that such covenants are not enforceable against an employee by a successor to the employer. Hawaii v. Gannett Pac. Corp. , 99 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (D. Haw. 1999)

It is vital to obtain the relevant law of the applicable state before drafting or attempting to enforce assignment rights in this particular area.

Conclusion:

In the current business world of fast changing structures, agreements, employees and projects, the ability to assign rights and obligations is essential to allow flexibility and adjustment to new situations. Conversely, the ability to hold a contracting party into the deal may be essential for the future of a party. Thus, the law of assignments and the restriction on same is a critical aspect of every agreement and every structure. This basic provision is often glanced at by the contracting parties, or scribbled into the deal at the last minute but can easily become the most vital part of the transaction.

As an example, one client of ours came into the office outraged that his co venturer on a sizable exporting agreement, who had excellent connections in Brazil, had elected to pursue another venture instead and assigned the agreement to a party unknown to our client and without the business contacts our client considered vital. When we examined the handwritten agreement our client had drafted in a restaurant in Sao Paolo, we discovered there was no restriction on assignment whatsoever…our client had not even considered that right when drafting the agreement after a full day of work.

One choses who one does business with carefully…to ensure that one’s choice remains the party on the other side of the contract, one must master the ability to negotiate proper assignment provisions.

Founded in 1939, our law firm combines the ability to represent clients in domestic or international matters with the personal interaction with clients that is traditional to a long established law firm.

Read more about our firm

© 2024, Stimmel, Stimmel & Roeser, All rights reserved  | Terms of Use | Site by Bay Design

  • What’s New on the Watch?
  • COVID-19 Updates
  • Private Equity Webinar Series
  • Private Equity Finance
  • Global PE Update
  • Glenn West Musings
  • Quarterly Private Funds Update
  • Ancillary Agreements
  • Co-investments
  • Cybersecurity
  • Going Privates
  • Legal Developments
  • Minority Investments
  • Portfolio Company Matters
  • Purchase Agreements
  • R&W Insurance
  • Secondaries
  • Securities Laws
  • Shareholder Agreements
  • Specialist Areas
  • Contributors
  • Global Team
  • Privacy Policy

assignment of future claims

Private Equity

Watch your inbox.

Get the latest views and developments in the private equity world from the Global Private Equity Watch team at Weil.

  • 617.395.7000
  • Chemical & Material Sciences
  • Computer Technology & Software
  • Consumer Products
  • Electronics
  • Life Sciences
  • Mechanical & Industrial
  • Medical Devices

Practice Areas

  • Strategic Counseling
  • Licensing & Transactions
  • Trade Secret
  • News & Events
  • Knowledge Center
  • Entrepreneurship Center
  • Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
  • Client Portal

T: 617.395.7000

E:  [email protected]

D. Mass. IP Litigation Blog

  • Knowledge Center :
  •   IP Insights

A Potential and Unintended Consequence of ‘Routine’ Patent Assignments

  • April 20, 2022

By: Thomas P. McNulty and Peter C. Lando

This article was originally published on Entrepreneur.com , March 28, 2022.

Patents and patent applications are frequently assigned from one entity to another, for example between inventors and their employers or between companies seeking to collaborate on a project. Like any other contract, there are occasionally disputes between the parties regarding the agreement contemplated by the patent assignment. These instances may reflect the different intentions or understandings of the parties at the time the agreement was entered into or may come about by the diverging interests of the parties over time. Some of these disputes have found their way to the Supreme Court. For example, the Court has held that an inventor must expressly grant his or her rights in an invention, and that standard employment agreement language that includes a promise to assign future inventions did not result in an immediate assignment of future inventions and could be superseded by an assignment using present-tense language.

A recent decision of the Supreme Court draws attention to another issue that may arise with a “routine” patent assignment. In this case, limits of the judicially-created doctrine of assignor estoppel was pivotal. The doctrine has been long understood to prevent one from asserting that the patent he or she assigned is invalid, because the requirements of good faith and fair dealing between contracting parties should prevent one from selling something for value and later asserting that what was sold is worthless.

The Supreme Court’s 2021 Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. decision addressed when the estoppel applies, holding that assignor estoppel is invoked only where an invalidity claim contradicts an explicit or implicit representation in the assignment that the patent was valid. Otherwise, the principle of fair dealing does not come into play. The Court noted several examples where the estoppel might not arise.

Assignment of Future Inventions

The first occasion noted by the Court was the assignment of inventions not yet made. This type of assignment might occur when an employee signs an agreement at the onset of employment that assigns all future inventions and patent applications to the employer. The employee cannot warrant that any claims covering future applications resulting from his or her work are valid, as the inventions have not yet been made and the claims have not yet been drafted or prosecuted.

Post-Assignment Changes in Patent Law

When a significant shift in patent law occurs following an assignment, either by the passage of a new statute or through a change in the interpretation of the patent laws, the doctrine also might not apply, at least with respect to the part of the law that changed. One such instance would be the Supreme Court’s 2014 Alice decision that set a new framework for analyzing patent eligibility for computer-implemented inventions. The validity of a patent in this field may well have been changed through the application of this new framework, and an inventor who assigned prior to the Alice decision could not have been expected to anticipate such a change and warrant that the claims were valid under the new framework.

Patent Claims that were Broadened by the Assignee

A third exception to application of the doctrine is exemplified in the Minerva case. Here, an inventor assigned a patent application to his company, which later assigned it to Hologic. When the inventor opened a new business, Minerva Surgical, to make and sell an improvement on the previously assigned invention, Hologic amended the claims of the assigned patent application to cover the new product. After the patent issued, Hologic sued Minerva for patent infringement, and Minerva then challenged the validity of the patent. Hologic then invoked assignor estoppel to argue that Minerva could not challenge the validity of the patent.

The Supreme Court upheld the principle of assignor estoppel in the abstract, but placed limitations on its application. The Court stated that where a patent application is assigned without foreknowledge of the scope of the claims that would issue, an inventor cannot be held to have attested to the validity of any claim broader than, or significantly different than, those of the application at the time of the assignment. Should the claims be narrowed, estoppel would still apply, as they would fall within the scope of the intellectual property known to be assigned. The Court then remanded the case for consideration of whether Hologic’s claim was materially broadened beyond the claims of the assigned patent application.

On remand, the Federal Circuit pointed out the trap that the Supreme Court’s holding leaves for inventors. Patent applications are typically written to claim an invention as broadly as the known prior art permits, but having filed broad claims, inventors who assign pending applications might find themselves estopped to argue invalidity of the claims that ultimately issue regardless of how the claims were changed after the assignment, because they will still fall within the scope of the claims as filed and assigned. Consideration should therefore be given to the breadth of claims filed in an application that is likely to be assigned, particularly where the assignee is or is likely to become a competitor of the inventor/assignor.

Entities To Whom the Estoppel Applies

The Minerva case did not address the degree of affiliation necessary for the estoppel to apply, leaving untouched the Federal Circuit’s “privity” analysis. Under that precedent, estoppel applies to each assignor and to everyone in privity with each assignor, with privity being determined by balancing the equities. Generally, if an assignor has a financial interest in the success of the accused activity, either directly or through an ownership stake in the defendant, or participates in the development of the allegedly infringing product or service, estoppel will apply.

If an employee assigned an invention to his employer, both the employee and the employer, and those in privity, would be estopped from challenging validity. In the Minerva case, Minerva was identified by the Court as the “alter-ego” of the assignor, who founded Minerva following the assignment of the relevant application. Other cases have found privity, and thus estoppel, where an inventor/assignor had been hired to work on the technology of the subject patents and had become a vice president and general manager of the division responsible for making the accused products; where an assignor is a principal stockholder, president and general manager of the accused infringer; where an assignor held control over the accused corporation despite lacking voting control of the corporation; where an assignor was married to a partner in the accused entity; and where an assignor provided knowledge and assistance in the accused conduct. Estoppel has been applied where the inventor/assignor was not an employee but consulted directly on the accused activity. On the other hand, hiring an inventor/assignor as a mere employee, with no ownership or control and with no input in the accused activity, may not result in an estoppel.

Consideration Supporting Estoppel

One question is whether the doctrine will be applied in circumstances where the assignor received little or no consideration for the assignment. Many employment contracts require employees to assign their inventions to their employers for some minimal amount or even as a condition of employment; likewise, many standard patent assignments refer to some unspecified “good and valuable consideration,” in which the receipt and sufficiency is acknowledged. The Federal Circuit has determined that employment, salary and/or bonuses are valid consideration for estoppel to apply, so inventors who are subject to such a contract will likely be unable to challenge the validity of their assigned patents.

What Assignor Estoppel Does Not Prohibit

While an assignor may not be able to challenge the validity of an assigned patent in court under this doctrine, some options are available. First, because the doctrine does not apply in actions before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board, an assignor may challenge the validity of a patent through inter partes review (IPR). While this does place some limitations on validity challenges (only anticipation or obviousness based on patents or printed publications can be asserted in an IPR), it does permit a validity challenge that could not be brought in court. The Federal Circuit held this month that parties can contract away their ability to bring an IPR proceeding, so assignees can potentially eliminate this avenue.

While not presented as invalidity arguments, assignors can also use prior art to support a narrow claim construction in a way that might avoid infringement. Similarly, an assignor can argue that the accused product practices the disclosure of an expired patent that anticipates the claims of the assigned patent, determining that to preclude such an argument would wrongfully allow the assignee to recapture subject matter that is dedicated to the public upon the expiration of a patent. This type of argument, which is effectively that the expired patent anticipates the assigned claims, is limited to expired patents, however, and is therefore of limited use.

Finally, as the doctrine of assignor estoppel arises out of the “good faith and fair dealing” that comes with contract law, the parties may be able to contract around its application. The Minerva decision noted that “the assignment of specific patent claims carries with it an implied assurance” of validity, whether this warranty is put in writing or not, but can the assignment expressly disclaim such a warranty? An assignment agreement that contains express language that the intellectual property at issue is being assigned “as is,” with no representations or warranties as to its validity, may suffice to escape application of the doctrine.

Assignees, on the other hand, may wish to take additional steps to ensure that the assignor cannot later challenge an assigned patent. The assignment could include express language preventing the assignor from challenging the validity of the assigned patents in court or at the Patent and Trademark Office, removing one potential loophole to the estoppel. If a full bar cannot be negotiated, terms that deter a validity challenge without an outright bar can be considered. Payment for the assignment can be staged over time, with a validity challenge resulting in forfeiture of any unpaid amounts, or an assignor can be required to pay the assignee’s legal costs associated with a validity challenge. The assignment could also include a noncompete clause, preventing the assignor from working in the field of the patent for a period of time. As noncompete agreements in employment contracts have come under increasing scrutiny, such a clause in connection with an assignment of an invention is more likely to hold up than a conventional employee noncompete.

Assignor estoppel is a potentially damaging surrender of a defense to patent infringement that should be understood and fully considered when entering into a patent assignment. Assignors should carefully consider the terms of an assignment to avoid placing unforeseen limits on their future activities. Likewise, assignees should know whether they are receiving this assurance of validity when signing an agreement, to ensure they are receiving the full scope of benefits for which they bargained. Assignments of patents, patent applications, and inventions therefore should be carefully scrutinized and not be treated simply as “form” agreements.

assignment of future claims

  • Thomas P. McNulty
  • Peter C. Lando

Professionals

SHARE THIS POST

How can we help you?

31 U.S. Code § 3727 - Assignments of claims

In subsection (a)(1), the words “or share thereof” and “whether absolute or conditional, and whatever may be the consideration therefor” are omitted as surplus. In clause (2), the word “authorization” is substituted for “powers of attorney, orders, or other authorities” to eliminate unnecessary words.

In subsections (b) and (c), the word “official” is substituted for “officer” for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code.

In subsection (b), the words “Except as hereinafter provided” are omitted as unnecessary. The words “read and” are omitted as surplus. The words “to the person acknowledging the same” are omitted as unnecessary. The text of 31:203(1st par. last sentence) is omitted as superseded by 39:410. The words “Notwithstanding any law to the contrary governing the validity of assignments ” and the text of 31:203(last par.) are omitted as unnecessary.

In subsection (c), before clause (1), the words “bank, trust company, or other . . . including any Federal lending agency” are omitted as surplus. The words “of money due or to become due under a contract providing for payments totaling at least $1,000” are substituted for “in any case in which the moneys due or to become due from the United States or from any agency or department thereof, under a contract providing for payments aggregating $1,000 or more” to eliminate unnecessary words. The text of 31:203(2d par. proviso cl. 1) is omitted as executed. In clause (1), the words “in the case of any contract entered into after October 9, 1940 ” are omitted as executed. In clause (2)(A), the words “payable under such contract” are omitted as surplus. In clause (3), the words “true” and “instrument of” are omitted as surplus. The words “department or” are omitted because of the restatement. The words “if any” and “to make payment” are omitted as surplus.

In subsection (d), before clause (1), the words “During a war or national emergency proclaimed by the President or declared by law and ended by proclamation or law” are substituted for “in time of war or national emergency proclaimed by the President (including the national emergency proclaimed December 16, 1950 ) or by Act or joint resolution of the Congress and until such war or national emergency has been terminated in such manner” to eliminate unnecessary words. The words “ Department of Energy (when carrying out duties and powers formerly carried out by the Atomic Energy Commission)” are substituted for “Atomic Energy Commission” (which was reconstituted as the Energy Research and Development Administration by 42:5813 and 5814) because of 42:7151(a) and 7293. The words “other department or . . . of the United States . . . except any such contract under which full payment has been made” and “of any moneys due or to become due under such contract” before “shall not be subject” are omitted as surplus. The words “A payment subsequently due under the contract (even after the war or emergency is ended) shall be paid to the assignee without” are substituted for “and if such provision or one to the same general effect has been at any time heretofore or is hereafter included or inserted in any such contract, payments to be made thereafter to an assignee of any moneys due or to become due under such contract, whether during or after such war or emergency . . . hereafter” to eliminate unnecessary words. The words “of any nature” are omitted as surplus. In clause (1), the words “or any department or agency thereof” are omitted as unnecessary. In clause (2), the words “under any renegotiation statute or under any statutory renegotiation article in the contract” are omitted as surplus.

Subsection (e)(1) is substituted for 31:203(4th par.) to eliminate unnecessary words.

In subsection (e)(2), the words “person receiving an amount under an assignment or allotment” are substituted for “assignees, transferees, or allottees” for clarity and consistency. The words “or to others for them” and “with respect to such assignments , transfers, or allotments or the use of such moneys” are omitted as surplus. The words “person making the assignment or allotment” are substituted for “assignors, transferors, or allotters” for clarity and consistency.

U.S. flag

Change Number: DFARS Change 01/22/2024 Effective Date: 01/22/2024

Subpart 232.8 - ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS

Subpart 232.8 - ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS

232.803 policies..

(b) Only contracts for personal services may prohibit the assignment of claims.

(d) Pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 6305, and in accordance with Presidential delegation dated October 3, 1995, Secretary of Defense delegation dated February 5, 1996, and Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment) delegation dated February 23, 1996, the Director of Defense Procurement determined on May 10, 1996, that a need exists for DoD to agree not to reduce or set off any money due or to become due under the contract when the proceeds under the contract have been assigned in accordance with the Assignment of Claims provision of the contract. This determination was published in the Federal Register on June 11, 1996, as required by law. Nevertheless, if departments/agencies decide it is in the Government's interest, or if the contracting officer makes a determination in accordance with FAR 32.803(d) concerning a significantly indebted offeror, they may exclude the no-setoff commitment.

232.805 Procedure.

(b) The assignee shall forward—

(i) To the administrative contracting officer (ACO), a true copy of the instrument of assignment and an original and three copies of the notice of assignment. The ACO shall acknowledge receipt by signing and dating all copies of the notice of assignment and shall—

(A) File the true copy of the instrument of assignment and the original of the notice in the contract file;

(B) Forward two copies of the notice to the disbursing officer of the payment office cited in the contract;

(C) Return a copy of the notice to the assignee; and

(D) Advise the contracting officer of the assignment.

(ii) To the surety or sureties, if any, a true copy of the instrument of assignment and an original and three copies of the notice of assignment. The surety shall return three acknowledged copies of the notice to the assignee, who shall forward two copies to the disbursing officer designated in the contract.

(iii) To the disbursing officer of the payment office cited in the contract, a true copy of the instrument of assignment and an original and one copy of the notice of assignment. The disbursing officer shall acknowledge and return to the assignee the copy of the notice and shall file the true copy of the instrument and original notice.

232.806 Contract clauses.

(a)(1) Use the clause at 252.232-7008 , Assignment of Claims (Overseas), instead of the clause at FAR 52.232-23, Assignment of Claims, in solicitations and contracts when contract performance will be in a foreign country.

(2) Use Alternate I with the clause at FAR 52.232-23, Assignment of Claims, unless otherwise authorized under 232.803 (d).

DFARS Parts

Dfars appendix.

  • Data Initiatives
  • Regulations
  • Smart Matrix
  • Regulations Search
  • Acquisition Regulation Comparator (ARC)
  • Large Agencies
  • Small Agencies
  • CAOC History
  • CAOC Charter
  • Civilian Agency Acquisition Council (CAAC)
  • Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council
  • Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee (ISDC)

GSA logo

ACQUISITION.GOV

An official website of the General Services Administration

assignment of future claims

At SmartCapitalMind, we're committed to delivering accurate, trustworthy information. Our expert-authored content is rigorously fact-checked and sourced from credible authorities. Discover how we uphold the highest standards in providing you with reliable knowledge.

Learn more...

What Is an Assignment of Claims?

An assignment of claims is a legal and financial process that allows one party to transfer or “assign” a claim to someone else, provided that the other party is in full knowledge of the assignment and agrees to it. In this process, the party that transfers the claim is called the assignor, and the party to whom the claim is transferred is called the assignee. Essentially, this situation entitles the assignee to the rights previously held by the assignor, according to the claim or contract. The assignment of claims, however, may also involve transference of some liabilities and legal responsibilities to the assignee.

There are many situations wherein assignment of claims can be applicable, such as in insurance claims , bankruptcies, and damages to compensate for an accident or injury. In the US, companies abide by the “Assignment of Claims Act of 1940” to carry out an assignment of claim when a contract between the said company and a client expires or is about to expire. One condition under the act is that there is a sum of $1,000 US Dollars or higher involved in the contract; if the sum is lower than that, then an assignment may not be able to push through.

An assignment of claims may be in order after an accident.

The company may only assign the claim to an assignee of a “financing institution,” like banks, government-funded lending agencies, or trust companies or corporations. This condition ensures that the assignee is able to take on the responsibilities involving the claim, especially for financial aspects. The existing contract between the assignor and another party should also not state any problem with assigning the claim to a new assignee; otherwise, the party with whom the assignor has a contract can sue the assignor for contract violation. Another condition would be that the assignor can only assign the claim to only one assignee, and that the latter cannot transfer the claim to another party.

Many cases require that the assignment be formally filed, especially when it involves property of high value, such as a huge sum or money, land, or forms of collateral . Generally, the courts do not have to investigate why an assignment was filed, but require the filing primarily for documentation purposes. In this process, another contract should be drawn up, stating that the claim will be transferred from the assignor to the assignee. Once the contract is agreed to and the two parties have willingly signed the contract, the assignment of claims is complete and a novation takes place, making the assignee the new claim holder.

You might also Like

Recommended, as featured on:.

Logo

Related Articles

  • What is an Assignment of Benefits?
  • What is a Debt Assignment?
  • What is an Assignment of Mortgage?

Discuss this Article

Post your comments.

An assignment of claims may be in order after an accident.

  • Construction Accidents

Practice Areas

Assignment of benefits: what you need to know.

  • August 17, 2022
  • Steven Schwartzapfel

Insurance can be useful, but dealing with the back-and-forth between insurance companies and contractors, medical specialists, and others can be a time-consuming and ultimately unpleasant experience. You want your medical bills to be paid without having to act as a middleman between your healthcare provider and your insurer.

However, there’s a way you can streamline this process. With an assignment of benefits, you can designate your healthcare provider or any other insurance payout recipient as the go-to party for insurance claims. While this can be convenient, there are certain risks to keep in mind as well.

Below, we’ll explore what an assignment of insurance benefits is (as well as other forms of remediation), how it works, and when you should employ it. For more information, or to learn whether you may have a claim against an insurer, contact Schwartzapfel Lawyers now at 1-516-342-2200 .

What Is an Assignment of Benefits?

An assignment of benefits (AOB) is a legal process through which an insured individual or party signs paperwork that designates another party like a contractor, company, or healthcare provider as their insurance claimant .

Suppose you’re injured in a car accident and need to file a claim with your health insurance company for medical bills and related costs. However, you also need plenty of time to recover. The thought of constantly negotiating between your insurance company, your healthcare provider, and anyone else seems draining and unwelcome.

With an assignment of benefits, you can designate your healthcare provider as your insurance claimant. Then, your healthcare provider can request insurance payouts from your healthcare insurance provider directly.

Through this system, the health insurance provider directly pays your physician or hospital rather than paying you. This means you don’t have to pay your healthcare provider. It’s a streamlined, straightforward way to make sure insurance money gets where it needs to go. It also saves you time and prevents you from having to think about insurance payments unless absolutely necessary.

What Does an Assignment of Benefits Mean?

An AOB means that you designate another party as your insurance claimant. In the above example, that’s your healthcare provider, which could be a physician, hospital, or other organization.

With the assignment of insurance coverage, that healthcare provider can then make a claim for insurance payments directly to your insurance company. The insurance company then pays your healthcare provider directly, and you’re removed as the middleman.

As a bonus, this system sometimes cuts down on your overall costs by eliminating certain service fees. Since there’s only one transaction — the transaction between your healthcare provider and your health insurer — there’s only one set of service fees to contend with. You don’t have to deal with two sets of service fees from first receiving money from your insurance provider, then sending that money to your healthcare provider.

Ultimately, the point of an assignment of benefits is to make things easier for you, your insurer, and anyone else involved in the process.

What Types of Insurance Qualify for an Assignment of Benefits?

Most types of commonly held insurance can work with an assignment of benefits. These insurance types include car insurance, healthcare insurance, homeowners insurance, property insurance, and more.

Note that not all insurance companies allow you to use an assignment of benefits. For an assignment of benefits to work, the potential insurance claimant and the insurance company in question must each sign the paperwork and agree to the arrangement. This prevents fraud (to some extent) and ensures that every party goes into the arrangement with clear expectations.

If your insurance company does not accept assignments of benefits, you’ll have to take care of insurance payments the traditional way. There are many reasons why an insurance company may not accept an assignment of benefits.

To speak with a Schwartzapfel Lawyers expert about this directly, call 1-516-342-2200 for a free consultation today. It will be our privilege to assist you with all your legal questions, needs, and recovery efforts.

Who Uses Assignments of Benefits?

Many providers, services, and contractors use assignments of benefits. It’s often in their interests to accept an assignment of benefits since they can get paid for their work more quickly and make critical decisions without having to consult the insurance policyholder first.

Imagine a circumstance in which a homeowner wants a contractor to add a new room to their property. The contractor knows that the scale of the project could increase or shrink depending on the specifics of the job, the weather, and other factors.

If the homeowner uses an assignment of benefits to give the contractor rights to make insurance claims for the project, that contractor can then:

  • Bill the insurer directly for their work. This is beneficial since it ensures that the contractor’s employees get paid promptly and they can purchase the supplies they need.
  • Make important decisions to ensure that the project completes on time. For example, a contract can authorize another insurance claim for extra supplies without consulting with the homeowner beforehand, saving time and potentially money in the process.

Practically any company or organization that receives payments from insurance companies may choose to take advantage of an assignment of benefits with you. Example companies and providers include:

  • Ambulance services
  • Drug and biological companies
  • Lab diagnostic services
  • Hospitals and medical centers like clinics
  • Certified medical professionals such as nurse anesthetists, nurse midwives, clinical psychologists, and others
  • Ambulatory surgical center services
  • Permanent repair and improvement contractors like carpenters, plumbers, roofers, restoration companies, and others
  • Auto repair shops and mechanic organizations

Advantages of Using an Assignment of Benefits

An assignment of benefits can be an advantageous contract to employ, especially if you believe that you’ll need to pay a contractor, healthcare provider, and/or other organization via insurance payouts regularly for the near future.

These benefits include but are not limited to:

  • Save time for yourself. Again, imagine a circumstance in which you are hospitalized and have to pay your healthcare provider through your health insurance payouts. If you use an assignment of benefits, you don’t have to make the payments personally or oversee the insurance payouts. Instead, you can focus on resting and recovering.
  • Possibly save yourself money in the long run. As noted above, an assignment of benefits can help you circumvent some service fees by limiting the number of transactions or money transfers required to ensure everyone is paid on time.
  • Increased peace of mind. Many people don’t like having to constantly think about insurance payouts, contacting their insurance company, or negotiating between insurers and contractors/providers. With an assignment of benefits, you can let your insurance company and a contractor or provider work things out between them, though this can lead to applications later down the road.

Because of these benefits, many recovering individuals, car accident victims, homeowners, and others utilize AOB agreements from time to time.

Risks of Using an Assignment of Benefits

Worth mentioning, too, is that an assignment of benefits does carry certain risks you should be aware of before presenting this contract to your insurance company or a contractor or provider. Remember, an assignment of benefits is a legally binding contract unless it is otherwise dissolved (which is technically possible).

The risks of using an assignment of benefits include:

  • You give billing control to your healthcare provider, contractor, or another party. This allows them to bill your insurance company for charges that you might not find necessary. For example, a home improvement contractor might bill a homeowner’s insurance company for an unnecessary material or improvement. The homeowner only finds out after the fact and after all the money has been paid, resulting in a higher premium for their insurance policy or more fees than they expected.
  • You allow a contractor or service provider to sue your insurance company if the insurer does not want to pay for a certain service or bill. This can happen if the insurance company and contractor or service provider disagree on one or another billable item. Then, you may be dragged into litigation or arbitration you did not agree to in the first place.
  • You may lose track of what your insurance company pays for various services . As such, you could be surprised if your health insurance or other insurance premiums and deductibles increase suddenly.

Given these disadvantages, it’s still wise to keep track of insurance payments even if you choose to use an assignment of benefits. For example, you might request that your insurance company keep you up to date on all billable items a contractor or service provider charges for the duration of your treatment or project.

For more on this and related topic, call Schwartzapfel Lawyers now at 1-516-342-2200 .

How To Make Sure an Assignment of Benefits Is Safe

Even though AOBs do carry potential disadvantages, there are ways to make sure that your chosen contract is safe and legally airtight. First, it’s generally a wise idea to contact knowledgeable legal representatives so they can look over your paperwork and ensure that any given assignment of benefits doesn’t contain any loopholes that could be exploited by a service provider or contractor.

The right lawyer can also make sure that an assignment of benefits is legally binding for your insurance provider. To make sure an assignment of benefits is safe, you should perform the following steps:

  • Always check for reviews and references before hiring a contractor or service provider, especially if you plan to use an AOB ahead of time. For example, you should stay away if a contractor has a reputation for abusing insurance claims.
  • Always get several estimates for work, repairs, or bills. Then, you can compare the estimated bills and see whether one contractor or service provider is likely to be honest about their charges.
  • Get all estimates, payment schedules, and project schedules in writing so you can refer back to them later on.
  • Don’t let a service provider or contractor pressure you into hiring them for any reason . If they seem overly excited about getting started, they could be trying to rush things along or get you to sign an AOB so that they can start issuing charges to your insurance company.
  • Read your assignment of benefits contract fully. Make sure that there aren’t any legal loopholes that a contractor or service provider can take advantage of. An experienced lawyer can help you draft and sign a beneficial AOB contract.

Can You Sue a Party for Abusing an Assignment of Benefits?

Sometimes. If you believe your assignment of benefits is being abused by a contractor or service provider, you may be able to sue them for breaching your contract or even AOB fraud. However, successfully suing for insurance fraud of any kind is often difficult.

Also, you should remember that a contractor or service provider can sue your insurance company if the insurance carrier decides not to pay them. For example, if your insurer decides that a service provider is engaging in billing scams and no longer wishes to make payouts, this could put you in legal hot water.

If you’re not sure whether you have grounds for a lawsuit, contact Schwartzapfel Lawyers today at 1-516-342-2200 . At no charge, we’ll examine the details of your case and provide you with a consultation. Don’t wait. Call now!

Assignment of Benefits FAQs

Which states allow assignments of benefits.

Every state allows you to offer an assignment of benefits to a contractor and/or insurance company. That means, whether you live in New York, Florida, Arizona, California, or some other state, you can rest assured that AOBs are viable tools to streamline the insurance payout process.

Can You Revoke an Assignment of Benefits?

Yes. There may come a time when you need to revoke an assignment of benefits. This may be because you no longer want the provider or contractor to have control over your insurance claims, or because you want to switch providers/contractors.

To revoke an assignment of benefits agreement, you must notify the assignee (i.e., the new insurance claimant). A legally solid assignment of benefits contract should also include terms and rules for this decision. Once more, it’s usually a wise idea to have an experienced lawyer look over an assignment of benefits contract to make sure you don’t miss these by accident.

Contact Schwartzapfel Lawyers Today

An assignment of benefits is an invaluable tool when you need to streamline the insurance claims process. For example, you can designate your healthcare provider as your primary claimant with an assignment of benefits, allowing them to charge your insurance company directly for healthcare costs.

However, there are also risks associated with an assignment of benefits. If you believe a contractor or healthcare provider is charging your insurance company unfairly, you may need legal representatives. Schwartzapfel Lawyers can help.

As knowledgeable New York attorneys who are well-versed in New York insurance law, we’re ready to assist with any and all litigation needs. For a free case evaluation and consultation, contact Schwartzapfel Lawyers today at 1-516-342-2200 !

Schwartzapfel Lawyers, P.C. | Fighting For You™™

What Is an Insurance Claim? | Experian

What is assignment of benefits, and how does it impact insurers? | Insurance Business Mag

Florida Insurance Ruling Sets Precedent for Assignment of Benefits | Law.com

Related Posts

What to wear to jury duty: do’s & don’ts.

Heading to jury duty? It’s more than just fulfilling a civic responsibility; you’re stepping into a role that demands respect

What Are The Most Common Types Of Crane Accidents?

Crane accidents can cause significant injuries, costly damages, and considerable disruptions to construction sites. Moreover, if you’re a construction worker,

Psychological Damages: How Is It Defined?

In cases involving auto accidents, medical malpractice, or other forms of personal injuries, many believe that physical injuries are the

We'll Fight For You

Schwartzapfel® lawyers has a 99% client satisfaction rate, quick links.

  • News & Events
  • Verdicts & Settlements
  • Video Gallery
  • Wrongful Death
  • Vehicle Accidents
  • Slip & Fall
  • Medical Malpractice
  • Workers' Compensation
  • Personal Injuries
  • Product Liability
  • Garden City

assignment of future claims

  • Community Involvement
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution
  • Asbestos/Toxic Tort
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Employment Practices Liability
  • General and Automotive Liability
  • Grievance Defense
  • Insurance Coverage
  • Medical Malpractice
  • Product Liability
  • Professional Liability
  • Trucking and Transportation Liability
  • Paraprofessionals
  • Administration
  • Pros for Pros
  • Driving Forward

An Assignor’s Release of Past, Present, and Future No-Fault Benefits Applies to His Assignee Unless the Insurer Receives Notice of the Assignment

Since the Michigan Supreme Court released its Covenant opinion [1] in 2017, Michigan courts have issued inconsistent decisions regarding a medical provider’s rights under an assignment after the assignor settles his claim for no-fault personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. The Michigan Court of Appeals heeded the calls for direction on this issue and approved Physiatry and Rehab Assoc v Alhalemi , ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2020) (Docket No. 349465) , for publication on July 16, 2020. The Court held that an assignor’s settlement and release of all past, present, and future claims against his insurer is binding on his assignee unless the insurer receives a copy of the assignment before the settlement.

Background on Physiatry and Rehab Associates

Mohammed Alhalemi filed a lawsuit against his insurer, Westfield Insurance Company, seeking the payment of no-fault benefits for injuries that he sustained in a motor vehicle accident. While the lawsuit was pending, Alhalemi executed an assignment of benefits in favor of Physiatry and Rehab Associates, which provided medical services for Alhalemi after the accident. Subsequently, Alhalemi and Westfield entered into a facilitation settlement agreement. The following day, the parties executed a release, under which (1) Alhalemi released his rights to all past, present, and future claims for no-fault benefits arising out of the accident; (2) Alhalemi agreed to defend, indemnify, and hold Westfield harmless for any claims related to unpaid medical expenses (among other things); and (3) Alhalemi acknowledged full responsibility to pay liens, expenses, and/or benefits, including those claimed by a medical service provider.

After the settlement, Physiatry and Rehab Associates filed a separate lawsuit against Westfield, seeking the payment of no-fault PIP benefits as Alhalemi’s assignee. The trial court granted Westfield’s motion for summary disposition, reasoning that Westfield was released from liability under the terms of Alhalemi’s release. The court also held that Westfield was entitled to summary disposition because Physiatry and Rehab Associates failed to show that Westfield received written notice of its claim or the assignment of rights before the settlement.

The Court of Appeals’ Ruling

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition.

First, the Court rejected Physiatry and Rehab Associates’ argument that the release only applied to the specific claims that Alhalemi included in his litigation against Westfield. It explained that, under the plain and unambiguous language of the release, Alhalemi relinquished all past, present, and future claims and agreed to pay all unpaid medical expenses.

Further, the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that Physiatry and Rehab Associates’ claim was barred due to lack of notice under MCL 500.3112. The provider needed to give Westfield a copy of the assignment of benefits before Westfield entered into the settlement agreement with Alhalemi in order to pursue a claim against Westfield after the release.

Impact of Physiatry Rehab and Associates

The Court of Appeals’ opinion is now binding precedent. It gives district and circuit courts a direct instruction for handling provider cases filed after an injured party settles their claims against a no-fault insurer. If a provider fails to give the insurer notice of its assignment before the insured settles and releases their claims, the provider can’t maintain a separate action to recover no-fault benefits. [2]

Physiatry and Rehab Associates will remain significant as provider litigation shifts in response to the Legislature’s amendment of MCL 500.3112. Under the amended statute, a medical provider can pursue a direct cause of action for no-fault benefits against an insurer without an assignment. This change may cause insurers and their attorneys to be wary as they settle PIP cases with insureds, fearing an influx of provider claims after the settlement. However, under Physiatry Rehab and Associates , a medical provider can’t maintain a separate action against an insurer unless it provides notice of its claim before the insured settles and releases their claims. This should give no-fault insurance companies greater confidence as they settle PIP cases with their insureds.

If you have questions about Physiatry and Rehab Assoc v Alhalemi or no-fault provider litigation more broadly, please feel free to contact the author, Zabbia N. Alholou . More information about Collins Einhorn’s General and Automotive Liability Practice Group is available here .

[1] Covenant Med Ctr, Inc v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co , 500 Mich 191; 895 NW2d 490 (2017).

[2] Relatedly, the Court of Appeals recently issued an unpublished opinion holding that the submission of a bill isn’t enough to provide notice of an assignment-based claim. Rather, the provider must provide notice of the assignment itself.

Zabbia N. Alholou

Zabbia N. Alholou

[email protected] 248-663-7748

Similiar Articles

Release of Claims

Jump to section.

Release of claims is an extensive procedure by which one party relinquishes all unknown and known claims against another party. It is generally utilized in settlement negotiations and can be a useful instrument in settling disputes. In addition, releasing claims is voluntary and can be started by either party. Furthermore, the release of claims is usually used in settlement negotiations to settle conflicts, such as employment disputes, personal injury claims, and contract disputes.

How Release of Claims Helps Resolve Disputes

Release of claims is a statutory document that expresses that a party decides to give up all claims against another person in exchange for something of worth. It is usually used in settlement negotiations to resolve disagreements, such as employment disputes, personal injury claims, and contract disputes.

Furthermore, the release of claims procedure starts with a negotiation between the parties concerned. The party seeking the release of the claim usually offers some consideration, such as money or another form of payment, to the other person in exchange for releasing all claims. Once both parties decide on the provisions of the release of claims, both parties draft and sign a written document. Moreover, the release of claims documents generally comprises the following:

  • The specific claims released
  • The names and addresses of the parties involved
  • The consideration being offered in exchange for the release
  • A statement that the release is unforced and that the party signing it comprehends its provisions
  • A provision that the release is binding on both parties and their heirs, successors, and assigns
  • A statement that the release is a final settlement of all claims, known and unknown, arising from the dispute

Release of Claims Advantages

The release of claims process has several advantages for both parties involved in the conflict. Some of the advantages include the following:

The release of the claims process can effectively resolve conflicts between parties. Both parties decide to fix their differences and move on by executing a release of claims. It can be especially helpful when the dispute is causing considerable pressure or monetary hardship for one or both parties. In addition, the release of claims can offer closure and help parties avoid the time and cost associated with litigation.

The release of claims provides certainty to both parties, as it eliminates the risk of future litigation or claims arising from the dispute. In addition, the release of the claims process can be kept confidential, which can be especially important in cases where reputational harm is a concern.

By executing a release of claims, parties have more authority over the result of their disagreement. Instead of leaving the outcome of their argument up to a magistrate or jury, parties can work jointly to come to a mutually advantageous resolution. It can be exceptionally valuable when parties want to keep an association after resolving the dispute, such as in business disputes.

A release of claims can save parties money and time. Litigation can be lengthy and costly, and releasing claims can deliver a quicker and more cost-effective solution. Also, releasing claims can help parties avoid the emotional toll that litigation can take on people and businesses.

Another advantage of a release of claims is that it can save parties from prospective legal action. Once a release of claims is executed, the releasing party cannot seek any further legal action against the released party. Doing this can be especially helpful for organizations that want to safeguard themselves from future legal action by former workers or companies that want to protect themselves from future legal action by clients or suppliers.

Employers usually use the release of claims to safeguard themselves from liability. When employees sign a release of claims, they give up their lawful privilege to sue the employer for any suits related to their employment. This comprises claims for discrimination, wrongful termination, or harassment. It is valuable for companies who want to avoid costly legal battles and protect their enterprise reputation.

Eventually, a release of claims can be customized to fulfill the specific requirements of both parties. It can comprise specific terms and conditions decided upon by both parties. This allows for higher flexibility in settling conflicts and can lead to a more satisfactory result for all parties involved.

assignment of future claims

Key Terms for Release of Claims

  • Claims: Allegations or requests made by one party against another for losses or damages incurred due to a particular incident or action.
  • Settlement Agreement : A lawfully binding contract between parties that summarizes the terms of a settlement, including the release of claims.
  • Waiver : An intentional and voluntary relinquishment of a legal privilege or claim.
  • Consideration: Something of worth provided in exchange for a release of claims, such as goods, money, or services.
  • Indemnification: A provision in a release of claims that demands one party to pay another party for any damages or losses that may occur.
  • Mutual Release: A release of claims executed by both parties, which allows both parties to release each other from suits or liabilities.

Final Thoughts on Release of Claims

In a nutshell, the release of claims is a useful tool in resolving conflicts between parties. It saves time and money, offers assurance and finality, maintains privacy and associations, and can be used in different contexts. And if you are involved in a conflict and are considering a release of claims, it is necessary to seek legal guidance to ensure that you comprehend the terms of the release and that your rights are safeguarded.

If you are looking to get free pricing proposals from vetted lawyers that are 60% less than typical law firms, you can Click here to get started. By comparing multiple proposals for free, you can save the time and stress of finding a quality lawyer for your business needs.

Need help with a Settlement Agreement?

Meet some of our lawyers.

Gregory F. on ContractsCounsel

Greg Fidlon has been practicing exclusively in employment law since 1998. He represents and advises clients in all aspects of the employment relationship. In addition to his litigation work, Greg regularly negotiates and drafts corporate policy handbooks, employment contracts, separation agreements and restrictive covenants. He also develops and presents training programs and has spoken and written extensively on labor and employment law topics.

Faryal A. on ContractsCounsel

Ms. Ayub is an attorney licensed to practice in Texas. Before moving to the US, she has a number of years of experience in contract review, analysis and drafting. Ms. Ayub is available to help you with your legal problems, as well as filling LLC and other business entity formation documents. To know more about her practice, please visit https://ayublawfirmpllc.com/.

Matthew F. on ContractsCounsel

As a business law attorney serving Coral Springs, Parkland, and Broward County, FL, Matthew has been recognized as “AV” rated, which is the highest rating an attorney can achieve through Martindale’s Peer Review system. Year after year Matthew is listed in the “Legal Leaders” publication as a top-rated attorney in South Florida in the areas of litigation, commercial litigation, and real estate. Matthew is also a graduate and instructor of the Kaufman Foundation’s FastTrac NewVenture Program, presented by the Broward County Office of Economic and Small Business Development.

George L. on ContractsCounsel

I am a corporate attorney with offices in Rock Hill, SC, and Lavonia, GA. My practice is focused on contracts, tax, and asset protection planning. I act as a fractional outside general counsel to over 20 businesses in 6 countries. When not practicing law, I can usually be found training my bird dogs.

Max N. on ContractsCounsel

Oklahoma attorney focused on real estate transactions, quiet title lawsuits, estate planning, probates, business formations, and all contract matters.

John C. on ContractsCounsel

Licensed to practice law in the states of Missouri and Kansas. Have been licensed to practice law for 44 years. Have been AV rated by Martindale Hubbel for almost 30 years.

Michael S. on ContractsCounsel

Real estate and corporate attorney with over 30 years of experience in large and small firms and in house.

Find the best lawyer for your project

Contract lawyers by top cities.

  • Austin Business Lawyers
  • Boston Business Lawyers
  • Chicago Business Lawyers
  • Dallas Business Lawyers
  • Denver Business Lawyers
  • Houston Business Lawyers
  • Los Angeles Business Lawyers
  • New York Business Lawyers
  • Phoenix Business Lawyers
  • San Diego Business Lawyers
  • Tampa Business Lawyers

RELEASE OF CLAIMS LAWYERS BY CITY

  • Austin Release Of Claims Lawyers
  • Boston Release Of Claims Lawyers
  • Chicago Release Of Claims Lawyers
  • Dallas Release Of Claims Lawyers
  • Denver Release Of Claims Lawyers
  • Houston Release Of Claims Lawyers
  • Los Angeles Release Of Claims Lawyers
  • New York Release Of Claims Lawyers
  • Phoenix Release Of Claims Lawyers
  • San Diego Release Of Claims Lawyers
  • Tampa Release Of Claims Lawyers

Legal Plans

ContractsCounsel made it very easy to find a lawyer to help our company with its legal needs.

Learn About Contracts

  • 501c3 Application
  • Accelerated Clinical Trial Agreement
  • Acceptable Use Policy
  • Acceptance Agreement
  • Accommodation Agreement
  • Account Agreement
  • Accountability Agreement
  • Accounting Services Agreement
  • Accreditation Agreement
  • Acknowledgement Agreement

other helpful articles

  • How much does it cost to draft a contract?
  • Do Contract Lawyers Use Templates?
  • How do Contract Lawyers charge?
  • Business Contract Lawyers: How Can They Help?
  • What to look for when hiring a lawyer

assignment of future claims

Quick, user friendly and one of the better ways I've come across to get ahold of lawyers willing to take new clients.

Contracts Counsel was incredibly helpful and easy to use. I submitted a project for a lawyer's help within a day I had received over 6 proposals from qualified lawyers. I submitted a bid that works best for my business and we went forward with the project.

I never knew how difficult it was to obtain representation or a lawyer, and ContractsCounsel was EXACTLY the type of service I was hoping for when I was in a pinch. Working with their service was efficient, effective and made me feel in control. Thank you so much and should I ever need attorney services down the road, I'll certainly be a repeat customer.

I got 5 bids within 24h of posting my project. I choose the person who provided the most detailed and relevant intro letter, highlighting their experience relevant to my project. I am very satisfied with the outcome and quality of the two agreements that were produced, they actually far exceed my expectations.

Want to speak to someone?

Get in touch below and we will schedule a time to connect!

Find lawyers and attorneys by city

IMAGES

  1. Assignment of a Claim for Damages Template

    assignment of future claims

  2. (PDF) Assignment of Claims and Proprietary Effects: Overview of

    assignment of future claims

  3. FX Forwards and Futures

    assignment of future claims

  4. Claim Assignment Agreement Template

    assignment of future claims

  5. irrevocable assignment Doc Template

    assignment of future claims

  6. Academic Conclusion

    assignment of future claims

VIDEO

  1. FUTURE PLAN ASSIGNMENT 9

  2. (AC-S11) Week 11

  3. (AC-S11) Week 11

  4. jme exam assignment future tense

  5. Week 11

  6. (AC-S11) Week 11

COMMENTS

  1. Subpart 32.8

    32.806 Contract clauses. (a) (1) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.232-23, Assignment of Claims, in solicitations and contracts expected to exceed the micro-purchase threshold, unless the contract will prohibit the assignment of claims (see 32.803 (b)). The use of the clause is not required for purchase orders.

  2. Subpart 532.8

    The notification should also state that the contracting officer requested the contractor to specify the name and address of the assignee on future invoices. 532.806 Contract clauses. Insert the clause at 552.232-23 , Assignment of Claims, in solicitations and requirements or indefinite quantity contracts under which more than one agency may ...

  3. PDF Contract Administration Activity 39: Assignment of Claims

    Activity 39: Assignment of Claims Procedures covering the assignment of claims. Related Flow Charts: Flow Chart 39 Tasks FAR Reference(s) Additional Information 1. Determine if assignment of claims is permissible. FAR 32.802 Conditions [assignment of claims]. A contractor may assign moneys due or to become due under a

  4. Assignment of Future Claims and Factoring

    The assignment of future claims, which in most cases places with factoring contracts, may be some future rights to performance that will arise from contracts already concluded and also from contracts have not been done at the time of assignment. First, the paper focuses the general problem and not unique to the assignment of future claims - but ...

  5. FAQs on assignments in finance transactions

    legal assignment are broadly equally available to an assignee under a notified equitable assignment for value. These benefits are: a. once the debtor has received notice of an absolute assignment, it must pay or perform the assigned rights in favour of the assignee; b. notice to the debtor is capable of establishing the priority of the assignment

  6. Assignment of Future Claims and Factoring

    The assignment of future claims, which in most cases places with factoring contracts, may be some future rights to performance that will arise from contracts already concluded and also from contracts have not been done at the time of assignment. First, the paper focuses the general problem and not unique to the assignment of future claims - but ...

  7. Assignment of Future Rights

    An assignment of future earnings from a certain employment or trade has been treated as an assignment of wages under an existing contract of employment. This is because the possibility of future earnings is coupled with an interest. There is the existence of a vested right. Chose in action, except in torts, is assignable.

  8. Assignment of Benefits: What It Is, and How It Can Affect your ...

    What is an Assignment of Benefits? In the context of insured property claims, an assignment of benefits (AOB) is an agreement between you and a contractor in which you give the contractor your right to insurance payments for a specific scope of work.In exchange, the contractor agrees that it will not seek payment from you for that scope of work, except for the amount of any applicable deductible.

  9. 48 CFR Part 32 Subpart 32.8 -- Assignment of Claims

    32.803 Policies. ( a) Any assignment of claims that has been made under the Act to any type of financing institution listed in 32.802 (b) may thereafter be further assigned and reassigned to any such institution if the conditions in 32.802 (d) and (e) continue to be met. ( b) A contract may prohibit the assignment of claims if the agency ...

  10. 32.304-5 Assignment of claims under contracts.

    32.304-5. Assignment of claims under contracts. (a) The agency shall generally require a contractor that is provided a guaranteed loan to execute an assignment of claims under defense production contracts (including any contracts entered into during the term of the guaranteed loan that are eligible for financing under the loan); however, the ...

  11. Assignment of Claims Explained

    The assignment of claims is a legal and financial process where an individual or entity (the assignor) transfers a claim or a right to another party (the assignee). This claim could be any asset, such as a receivable or a contract right. The assignee, upon receiving the claim, has the right to seek fulfillment from the debtor or obligor.

  12. Assignment of claims

    Assignment of claims. Civil Code section 954 states "[a] thing in action, arising out of the violation of a right of property, or out of an obligation, may be transferred by the owner." The term "thing in action" means "a right to recover money or other personal property by a judicial proceeding." (Civ. Code, § 953.) California's ...

  13. Assignments: The Basic Law

    Ordinarily, the term assignment is limited to the transfer of rights that are intangible, like contractual rights and rights connected with property. Merchants Service Co. v. Small Claims Court, 35 Cal. 2d 109, 113-114 (Cal. 1950). An assignment will generally be permitted under the law unless there is an express prohibition against assignment ...

  14. Assignment of Future Claims and Factoring

    The assignment of future claims, which in most cases places with factoring contracts, may be some future rights to performance that will arise from contracts already concluded and also from ...

  15. Stuff You Might Need to Know: What Assignments Do Broad Anti-Assignment

    A recent federal court decision applying Delaware law, Partner Reinsurance Co. Ltd. v. RPM Mortgage, Inc., 2021 WL 2716307 (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2021), explores some rare contractual territory—i.e., the question whether, in the absence of consent, a valid assignment may be made by a party of its rights to pursue a claim for damages for breach of a merger agreement, notwithstanding an anti ...

  16. A Potential and Unintended Consequence of 'Routine' Patent Assignments

    The Court stated that where a patent application is assigned without foreknowledge of the scope of the claims that would issue, an inventor cannot be held to have attested to the validity of any claim broader than, or significantly different than, those of the application at the time of the assignment. Should the claims be narrowed, estoppel ...

  17. 31 U.S. Code § 3727

    31 U.S. Code § 3727 - Assignments of claims. a transfer or assignment of any part of a claim against the United States Government or of an interest in the claim; or. the authorization to receive payment for any part of the claim. An assignment may be made only after a claim is allowed, the amount of the claim is decided, and a warrant for ...

  18. Subpart 232.8

    232.806 Contract clauses. (a) (1) Use the clause at 252.232-7008, Assignment of Claims (Overseas), instead of the clause at FAR 52.232-23, Assignment of Claims, in solicitations and contracts when contract performance will be in a foreign country. (2) Use Alternate I with the clause at FAR 52.232-23, Assignment of Claims, unless otherwise ...

  19. What Is an Assignment of Claims?

    Karize Uy. An assignment of claims is a legal and financial process that allows one party to transfer or "assign" a claim to someone else, provided that the other party is in full knowledge of the assignment and agrees to it. In this process, the party that transfers the claim is called the assignor, and the party to whom the claim is ...

  20. Assignment of Benefits: What You Need to Know

    There are many reasons why an insurance company may not accept an assignment of benefits. To speak with a Schwartzapfel Lawyers expert about this directly, call 1-516-342-2200 for a free consultation today. It will be our privilege to assist you with all your legal questions, needs, and recovery efforts.

  21. Assignment and novation

    Like assignment, novation transfers the benefits under a contract but unlike assignment, novation transfers the burden under a contract as well. In a novation the original contract is extinguished and is replaced by a new one in which a third party takes up rights and obligations which duplicate those of one of the original parties to the ...

  22. An Assignor's Release of Past, Present, and Future No-Fault Benefits

    Since the Michigan Supreme Court released its Covenant opinion in 2017, Michigan courts have issued inconsistent decisions regarding a medical provider's rights under an assignment after the assignor settles his claim for no-fault personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. The Michigan Court of Appeals heeded the calls for direction on this issue and approved Physiatry and Rehab Assoc v ...

  23. Release of Claims: Everything You Need to Know

    A release of claims can save parties money and time. Litigation can be lengthy and costly, and releasing claims can deliver a quicker and more cost-effective solution. Also, releasing claims can help parties avoid the emotional toll that litigation can take on people and businesses. Security from Future Legal Action