In 2006, Marshall Johnson, then a minor, was injured in a car accident. In 2008, the tortfeasor’s insurer, State Farm, and Johnson’s guardian settled a personal injury claim on Johnson’s behalf through a structured settlement agreement (SSA). The SSA contained an antiassignment clause that prevented Johnson, but not State Farm, from assigning the right to receive payments from the SSA. State Farm went on to assign its rights to MetLife. In 2013, 23-year-old Johnson was short on cash. He contacted J. G. Wentworth, a factoring company, about selling his $29,000 annuity (which was to be doled out in smaller payments until 2020) for $17,250 cash. Wentworth filed a petition to obtain approval to have the SSA rights transferred to Wentworth. MetLife filed objections, citing the antiassignment clause. A hearing on the petition was held and the trial court allowed the transfer due to Johnson’s need for the funds. MetLife appealed the trial court’s decision. How do you think the appellate court ruled? Does MetLife have a say in the matter?