LA County Sex Abuse Settlement Payouts: How Government Abuse Settlements Actually Get Paid

Los Angeles County agreed to pay roughly $4.8 billion to survivors of sexual abuse in its juvenile facilities and foster homes. Almost none of that money has reached anyone yet, and the reason has nothing to do with the merits of a single claim.

The County is paying its $4 billion settlement over five fiscal years beginning in FY 2025-26, and a second $828 million settlement in three scheduled payments. A survivor with an approved claim is not waiting on a check that got lost. They are waiting on a budget cycle.

This is now the normal shape of a mass abuse settlement against a government. New Hampshire pays its youth center awards in annual installments over as long as ten years, by statute. Maryland, facing thousands of Child Victims Act claims, has paid nothing at all and has not identified where the money would come from. The payment schedule in each case is not a legal doctrine or a negotiating tactic. It is an arithmetic constraint: a county or a state cannot appropriate a multi-billion-dollar liability out of one year's general fund.

What follows is how that machinery works, what it means if you are the person waiting, and the risk almost nobody names out loud.

What LA County Agreed to Pay, and When

Los Angeles County approved two separate settlements totaling about $4.828 billion. The first, approved by the Board of Supervisors on April 29, 2025 (opens in a new tab), is worth $4 billion. The second, approved October 28, 2025, is worth up to $828 million. Both resolve claims brought under California's AB 218, the 2019 law that revived childhood sexual abuse claims that had expired under the old statute of limitations.

One distinction matters more than any other on this page, and it is the one most coverage gets wrong. The schedule on which the County pays claimants and the schedule on which the County pays its own lenders are two different things. Claimants are on a five-year schedule. The County's borrowing runs for decades.

The $4 Billion Settlement (Group A)

The County's own count puts this settlement at roughly 6,800 AB 218 matters, though by mid-2026 the District Attorney and press accounts describe 10,000 to 11,000 or more claims in the broader litigation. The claims arise from Probation Department facilities and the MacLaren Children's Center, and reach back to 1959.

The money is scheduled across five fiscal years beginning with FY 2025-26, with the first payment anticipated in January 2026, contingent on a bond validation action. Administrative costs are capped at about $15 million. Awards are set by what the County describes as "an independent team of allocation experts."

The master settlement agreement and the allocation protocol have not been released publicly. That is worth stating plainly rather than papering over: the exact deposit dates beyond the first, and the formula by which any individual award is calculated, are not matters of public record.

The $828 Million Settlement (Group B)

This one covers up to 414 plaintiffs and has a schedule you can actually read (opens in a new tab): $400 million by December 1, 2025, up to another $400 million within twelve months of that first payment, and up to $28 million within twelve months of the second. The first $400 million runs through the County's Judgment and Damages budget unit, funded by a transfer from Provisional Financing Uses.

Awards here are set by an independent allocator, in practice retired judges, based on factors including the severity of the abuse alleged.

Why LA County Survivors Have Not Been Paid Yet

Payments to the Group A claimants stalled in June 2026, when the Los Angeles County District Attorney asked a court to freeze them.

On or about June 10 to 11, 2026, District Attorney Nathan Hochman filed an ex parte application to intervene in the settlement and stay all disbursements for six months, through December 31, 2026. It was heard June 15 in Department 534 at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. The DA's office wrote that it "believes the percentage of fraudulent claims ... may be as high as 81 percent," based on a preliminary investigative phase using database matching.

Plaintiffs' counsel disputed the method, not merely the number. As one attorney for claimants put it, "the presence or absence of a hit in database searches does not equate to fraud." Nine plaintiff firms opposed the DA's application. Nine concurred with it.

On June 25, 2026, Judge Lawrence Riff denied the freeze.

What the Court Did and Did Not Decide

This is the part that is being reported carelessly, and getting it wrong in either direction does real harm to real people.

Judge Riff denied the stay on standing and separation-of-powers grounds. The District Attorney is not a party to the settlement, and the five elected members of the Board of Supervisors, not the DA, decide whether the County honors the contracts it signed. Riff described the dispute as "not a legal battle but rather a political one." Addressing Hochman directly, he observed: "We have an elected official, you ... and we have five supervisors who have likewise been elected by the people and put in responsible positions, and you disagree on what happens next. This happens in politics all the time."

The court made no finding that fraud occurred. The court also made no finding that it did not. The DA's investigation is continuing. Anyone telling you a judge cleared these claims, or that a judge confirmed they are fraudulent, is telling you something the record does not support.

Following the ruling, a first tranche of roughly $600 million was reported as cleared to disburse. That figure and its timing come from press accounts and should be treated as volatile.

Why Public Entities Pay Abuse Settlements Over Years Instead of All at Once

A government cannot write a check it has not appropriated. When a county or a state faces a liability measured in billions, no single fiscal year's budget can absorb it, so the settlement is paid across several budgets. The payment schedule is a budget constraint wearing a settlement's clothes.

That sentence sounds abstract until you look at the statute that makes it literal.

The Fiscal-Year Cap Is the Engine

New Hampshire created an administrative fund to compensate people abused at the Youth Development Center. The enabling statute, RSA 21-M:11-a (opens in a new tab), contains a provision that decides everything downstream: the claims administrator may not authorize more than $75 million in claims in any fiscal year.

That one number is why New Hampshire's awards became installments. It is not a policy judgment about what survivors need. It is a ceiling, and awards that exceed it have to be spread across years to fit underneath it.

Los Angeles County reached the same result without a statute forcing it. Five fiscal years is what the County determined it could appropriate.

A Judgment Obligation Bond Structures the County's Cost, Not Your Payments

This is the single most important paragraph on this page, and the easiest thing in this entire subject to get backwards.

To fund its settlements, LA County is borrowing. It issued judgment obligation bonds, which amortize the cost "over an estimated term not to exceed 30 years" and are obligations of the County payable from its General Fund. The County has said the financing "will require annual payments totaling hundreds of millions of dollars through 2030 and substantial continuing annual payments through fiscal year 2050-51."

Read quickly, that sounds like survivors are being paid until 2051. They are not. The 30-year stream belongs to bondholders. Claimants are on the five-year schedule described above. No survivor is on a payment stream running to 2051.

Borrowing is not free. The County's own disclosure shows that for $1 billion of judgment obligation bonds, at a true interest cost of 6.32 percent, the total payment amount is $2,248,505,561. Judgment obligation bonds require no voter approval. The Los Angeles Unified School District has used them twice, authorizing up to $500 million in 2025 and issuing $303 million of 15-year bonds at 5.6 percent.

So there are two different clocks. One is the claimant's. The other is the taxpayer's, and it runs far longer.

What Is a Qualified Settlement Fund?

A qualified settlement fund is a court-supervised account that holds settlement money separately from the defendant's own assets while claims are sorted out and paid. Under Treasury Regulation 1.468B-1(c) (opens in a new tab), it must satisfy three requirements: it is established by or approved by a governmental authority and remains subject to that authority's continuing jurisdiction; it exists to resolve claims "arising out of a tort, breach of contract, or violation of law"; and it is a trust under state law, or otherwise segregated from the assets of the party paying.

The fund pays tax only on what it earns by investing the money, not on the settlement dollars deposited into it.

For a defendant, the appeal is that a single deposit discharges the obligation, and the messy work of dividing money among thousands of claimants happens inside the fund, under a court's eye, rather than in negotiations with each person.

Why a Defendant Cannot Simply Write an IOU

There is a rule buried in the tax regulations that explains, better than any policy argument, why a multi-year public settlement has to be funded with real annual cash.

Treasury Regulation 1.468B-3(c)(3) provides that "economic performance does not occur when a transferor transfers to a qualified settlement fund its debt ... Instead, economic performance occurs as the transferor makes principal payments on the debt."

In plain terms: a government cannot get the benefit of the settlement by handing the fund a promise to pay later. It gets there only as it actually pays. That is why these arrangements involve scheduled deposits of real money across real budget years, and it is why the deposit schedule, not the settlement announcement, is the thing worth watching.

New Hampshire's YDC Fund: What a Statutory Installment Regime Looks Like

New Hampshire built what Los Angeles County improvised. It is the clearest working example in the country of a government paying abuse claims on a statutory schedule, and it is also a warning.

Under RSA 21-M:11-a, awards may be paid in annual installments over as long as ten years, with 5 percent interest per year, compounded annually, on the unpaid balance. A claimant may also elect a lump sum.

The shift toward installments is measurable rather than theoretical. Of $239,298,259.46 awarded to 425 claimants as of May 31, 2026, $136,658,584.46 was periodic and only $102,639,675.00 was paid as a lump sum. In state fiscal year 2025, $119.35 million of the $126.04 million awarded was periodic.

For the full picture of the New Hampshire fund, including eligibility and the claims process, see our New Hampshire Youth Center settlement payout guide and our YDC settlement update.

What Happens When the Money Runs Out

Here is the risk nobody names.

As of May 31, 2026, New Hampshire had paid $156,215,556.33 and still owed $83,082,703.13 in future installments. Against the $185 million appropriated, the fund's anticipated balance is negative $66,233,450.29. The claims administrator asked the legislature for $55 million and received $20 million. He has said the account will be in arrears by the end of October 2026. And 1,689 claims are still pending.

An award is a promise. A promise from a government is only as good as its next appropriation.

New Hampshire, to its credit, wrote a backstop into the statute. Under RSA 21-M:11-a, XII(d), if the state misses a payment and does not cure within 30 days, the administrator's decision converts into a judgment enforceable in superior court for the full remaining balance, plus the claimant's costs of enforcement. Not every jurisdiction gives claimants that.

Maryland, New Jersey and Illinois: The Claims With No Payment Plan

It would be tidy to say that governments facing these claims are building funds and payment schedules. The record does not support it. Two jurisdictions are paying on a schedule. Three are still fighting over whether to pay at all.

Maryland has roughly 1,200 Child Victims Act suits against state agencies, brought by more than 12,000 plaintiffs. The State's own fiscal note (opens in a new tab) is blunt: "The State has not paid any claims under the CVA and has not assigned a funding source for existing claims." Rather than build a fund, Maryland reduced what claims are worth, cutting the cap from $890,000 to $400,000 and changing the unit of recovery from per incident to per claimant, effective June 1, 2025. On July 9, 2026, the Supreme Court of Maryland agreed to hear the State's sovereign immunity challenge, which could reach roughly 1,300 pre-1982 claims. The only official exposure estimate comes from the Attorney General: $3.5 billion to $34.0 billion.

New Jersey has about 349 pending suits, with 249 consolidated in state court. There is no fund, no bonding, and no statewide payment mechanism. Asked by legislative budget analysts over what period settlements must be paid, the State answered that the timing "is negotiated along with the other terms of settlement" in each case. The median settlement was $975,000 as of March 2026. The State declined to state its total exposure.

Illinois had 907 cases as of July 16, 2025, against state youth centers and the Cook County juvenile detention center. There is no settlement. The Attorney General moved to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds. Claims against the State go to the Court of Claims, where recovery is capped at $2 million per claimant and paid only as the General Assembly appropriates.

California Already Had the Tools, and They Went Unused

California has had statutes for this since the 1980s. Government Code 970.6 lets a court order a local agency to pay a judgment in up to ten equal annual installments. Government Code 984 lets a self-insured public entity pay half now and the balance over as long as ten years, with the court keeping jurisdiction to accelerate payment if the entity delays unreasonably.

In January 2025, the state's own Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team told the Legislature that "the usefulness of Government Code 970.6 and 984 are severely limited," and recommended that the Legislature consider establishing a victims' compensation fund by July 1, 2026.

The Legislature did not. Senate Bill 577, which would have given courts express authority to structure judgments against public entities to be paid over time, passed the Senate and was ordered to the Assembly's inactive file on September 10, 2025. It died there. No replacement was introduced, the July 2026 date passed, and Government Code 970.6 and 984 remain unamended.

That absence explains what public entities are actually doing. With no workable way to structure the claimant's payments, they borrow instead, and a judgment obligation bond does the opposite of structuring: it hands the claimant a lump sum now and leaves the public with decades of debt service. What changed over the last four years is not the law. It is the size of the liability.

How the Payouts Compare

Jurisdiction	Litigation	Total amount	Payment schedule to claimants	Administrator	Governing authority
LA County (Group A)	LASC Lead Case No. 22STCV25961. About 6,800 AB 218 matters per the County; the DA and press describe 10,000 to 11,000+	$4 billion, plus up to $15 million in administrative costs	Five fiscal years beginning FY 2025-26. First payment January 2026	"An independent team of allocation experts." The protocol is not public	AB 218. Board of Supervisors approval, April 29, 2025
LA County (Group B)	Same lead case. Up to 414 plaintiffs	Up to $828 million	$400M by Dec 1, 2025; up to $400M within 12 months; up to $28M within 12 months of that	Independent allocator (retired judges), severity-based	Board of Supervisors approval, October 28, 2025
New Hampshire (YDC)	Administrative claims fund. 2,269 claims filed; filing closed June 30, 2025	$239,298,259.46 awarded to 425 claimants as of May 31, 2026. 1,689 claims still pending	Lump sum, or annual installments up to 10 years with 5% interest compounded annually. Fund capped at $75 million per fiscal year	Claims administrator (Judge Gerard J. Boyle since May 1, 2026)	RSA 21-M:11-a
Maryland	About 1,200 Child Victims Act suits; 12,000+ plaintiffs	None paid. No funding source assigned. Official estimate: $3.5B to $34.0B	None. No appropriation exists	Special magistrate for case management, not allocation	Maryland Child Victims Act. Cap cut from $890,000 to $400,000 in 2025
New Jersey	About 349 pending; 249 consolidated	Median settlement $975,000 (State figure, March 2026). Total exposure not stated	Negotiated case by case. No fund, no bonds, no statewide schedule	Attorney General's Office negotiates	New Jersey Tort Claims Act
Illinois	907 cases as of July 16, 2025	No settlement. The Attorney General moved to dismiss	None	Illinois Court of Claims	705 ILCS 505/8(d). $2 million cap per claimant, paid as appropriated
LAUSD (financing side, for contrast)	AB 218 claims against the district	Up to $500M authorized in bonds; $303M issued	This is the district's repayment schedule to bondholders, not a claimant payment schedule	Not applicable	California bond statutes. No voter approval required

What This Means If You Are Waiting on a Settlement Payment

An award is not a check. Three things stand between an approved claim and money in your account, and each of them can take time: allocation, which decides what your claim is worth; appropriation, which decides whether the money exists; and the payment schedule, which decides when it arrives.

Appropriation risk is the one nobody names, and New Hampshire is the live proof that it is real. A fund can run short while it still owes people money. If you hold an award against a government payor, the relevant question is not only what you were awarded. It is what the payor's next budget looks like.

Interest on a deferred public award is sometimes, but not always, paid. New Hampshire pays 5 percent compounded annually on the unpaid balance. Many schedules pay nothing.

And the tax treatment of a settlement, or of any later transaction involving it, depends entirely on individual circumstances. That is a conversation for a tax professional who knows your situation, not for an article.

Can a Payment Stream That Is Paid Over Time Be Sold?

This question comes up, so it deserves a careful answer rather than a marketing one.

Structured settlement payment rights can generally be transferred only with advance court approval. Federal law imposes a 40 percent excise tax on the discount in a factoring transaction unless a state court approves the transfer in advance and finds it is in the payee's best interest, under 26 U.S.C. 5891. Every state with a transfer act requires that judicial finding. You can read more in our overview of how selling structured settlement payments works and what a structured settlement is.

Whether a particular government installment award falls within a given state's transfer act is a genuinely open question. New Hampshire's RSA 408-G and California's Insurance Code 10139.5 both define a structured settlement to include the periodic payment of damages established by settlement or judgment in resolution of a tort claim, and neither definition requires that the payments be funded by an annuity. On their face, those definitions appear to reach payments of this kind. But no court has been found to have held that a New Hampshire YDC installment award or an LA County settlement installment is a transferable structured settlement payment right.

That is where the honest answer stops. Anyone who tells you with certainty that these payments can be sold, or that they cannot, is ahead of the case law.

A disclosure about who wrote this. Catalina Structured Funding purchases structured settlement payment streams from people who decide they would rather have money now than payments later. Any transfer requires court approval. We are not telling anyone to sell, and for many people holding a government installment award, particularly one that pays interest, keeping it will be the better decision. If you want to understand what a payment stream is worth before deciding anything, our review is free, and the amount we quote is the amount you receive. You can reach us at (800) 317-3769 or request a lump sum quote. We are not your lawyer, and nothing here is legal advice about your claim.

Frequently Asked Questions

When is the LA County settlement payout date?

The $4 billion settlement is scheduled across five fiscal years beginning in FY 2025-26, with the first payment anticipated in January 2026. After Judge Riff denied the District Attorney's request to freeze payments on June 25, 2026, a first tranche of roughly $600 million was reported as cleared to disburse. The master settlement agreement is not public, so exact per-claimant payment dates are not a matter of public record either.

How much is the LA County settlement per person?

No per-person figure is public. Awards in the $4 billion settlement are set by an independent team of allocation experts, and awards in the $828 million settlement are set by an independent allocator based on factors including the severity of the abuse alleged. Neither allocation protocol has been released. Dividing the total by a claim count does not produce anyone's award, and any number generated that way should be treated as fiction.

What is a qualified settlement fund?

A qualified settlement fund is a court-supervised account that holds settlement money apart from the defendant's own assets while claims are resolved and paid. Under Treasury Regulation 1.468B-1(c), it must be established or approved by a governmental authority and remain subject to its continuing jurisdiction, must exist to resolve claims arising out of a tort, breach of contract, or violation of law, and must be a trust or otherwise segregated from the paying party's assets. It is taxed on its investment earnings, not on the settlement dollars deposited into it.

How long does it take to get money from a settlement fund?

Longer than most people expect, because three separate steps have to finish. Allocation decides what a claim is worth. Appropriation decides whether the money exists. The payment schedule decides when it arrives. New Hampshire shows the scale: as of May 31, 2026, its youth center fund had paid $156.2 million and still owed $83.1 million in future installments, with 1,689 claims pending.

How are lawsuit settlements paid out?

Three ways. A lump sum, in a single payment. Periodic payments, spread over years. Or through a settlement fund that receives the defendant's money and distributes it to claimants on a schedule. A private insurer's check and a public entity's payment are different animals: the insurer has reserves, while the government has to appropriate the money, and that difference is why settlements against public entities so often arrive in installments.

Did the judge find fraud in the LA County settlement?

No. On June 25, 2026, Judge Lawrence Riff denied the District Attorney's request to freeze payments, but he did so on standing and separation-of-powers grounds, holding that the DA is not a party to the settlement and that the elected Board of Supervisors decides whether the County honors it. The court made no finding about whether any claim is fraudulent, in either direction. The District Attorney's investigation is continuing.

What happens if a state misses an installment payment?

It depends entirely on the statute, and most people never think to ask until it matters. New Hampshire wrote a remedy into RSA 21-M:11-a: if the state fails to pay an installment and does not cure within 30 days, the claims administrator's decision converts into a judgment enforceable in superior court for the entire remaining balance, plus the claimant's costs of enforcement. Not every jurisdiction provides that protection, which is why the enforcement provision deserves as much attention as the award itself.

Can settlement payments paid over time be sold for a lump sum?

Structured settlement payment rights can generally be transferred only with advance court approval, and federal law imposes a 40 percent excise tax on the discount without it. Whether a particular government installment award falls within a given state's transfer act is a question for a court and for a claimant's own attorney. The statutory definitions in states like New Hampshire and California appear on their face to reach payments established by settlement or judgment, but no court has yet decided the question for these specific funds.