Champerty & maintenance

Boling v. Prospect Funding Holdings, LLC

U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (Kentucky law) · US (KY) · 2018 · Decided

Citation/Docket: 771 F. App'x 562 / No. 17-6383 (6th Cir. 2018)

Parties & Funders

Posture: Funder vs. funded consumer plaintiff
Funder(s) involved: Prospect Funding Holdings

Background

Prospect sued to enforce pre-settlement advances against a Kentucky PI plaintiff.

Holding & Outcome

Applying Kentucky law, the court held the funding agreements champertous and void as against public policy.

Practical Lesson

State-by-state champerty mapping is existential for consumer funders; identical contracts are enforceable in one state and void next door.

Matters like this one often turn on expert testimony, on valuation, industry custom and practice, legal ethics, or damages. The Institute partners with world-class expert witness referral companies for this purpose.

Compiled from public sources (court filings, published opinions, and secondary reporting) as part of the Institute's Phase 1 Dispute Library research. This is educational material, not legal advice; case citations should be independently verified before relied upon.

← Back to the Dispute Library