A court may decide whether a structured settlement proposal is in the best interests of the transferor. The defendant, Daisy Gonzalez, requested the court's permission to enter into a structured settlement, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §52-225g. The proposed agreement provides that Gonzalez would receive $12,182 immediately, as opposed to 225 payments of $250 that over time eventually will total $63,750. 'Structured Settlement Protection Acts have been enacted in Connecticut and many other states to protect payees from exploitation by factoring companies,' pursuant to Settlement Funding LLC v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co., a 2006 decision of the Connecticut Superior Court. 'Pursuant to the statute, the court must do more than consider whether or not the transaction is a good financial deal for the transferor, it must determine whether under the circumstances presented it is in the general best interest of the transferor taking into account the welfare and support of her dependents,' pursuant to Seneca One LLC v. Hartford Life Insurance Co., a 2007 decision of the Connecticut Superior Court. The court considered Gonzalez's finances, the fact that she previously exchanged 288 payments valued at $698,650 for an immediate payment of $100,000 and case law on structured settlements. The court was not persuaded that the current proposal to exchange a flow of payments valued at $63,750 for an immediate payment of $12,182 is in Gonzalez's best interests. The court denied the application.