Prejudgment Remedies

Connecticut has a comprehensive prejudgment remedy statute, allowing the prejudgment attachment and garnishment of assets to secure potential judgments.

If the court finds that the application for the prejudgment remedy should be granted, whether the plaintiff should be required to post a bond to secure the defendant against damages that may result from the prejudgment remedy or whether the defendant should be allowed to substitute a bond for the prejudgment remedy. If the court, upon consideration of the facts before it and taking into account any defenses, counterclaims or set-offs, claims of exemption and claims of adequate insurance, finds that the plaintiff has shown probable cause that such a judgment will be rendered in the matter in the plaintiff's favor in the amount of the prejudgment remedy sought and finds that a prejudgment remedy securing the judgment should be granted, the prejudgment remedy applied for shall be granted as requested or as modified by the court. The court shall not grant the prejudgment remedy if the prejudgment remedy or application for such prejudgment remedy was dismissed or withdrawn. (C.G.S.A. § 52-278d)

Attachments may be granted upon all complaints containing a money demand against the estate of the defendant, both real and personal. (C.G.S.A. § 52-279)

Prejudgment remedy hearings do not amount to full-scale trials on the merits of the plaintiff's claim, but rather ""concern only whether and to what extent the plaintiff is entitled to have property of a defendant held in custody of the law pending final adjudication of the merits of the action."" Bosco v. Arrowhead by the Lake, Inc., 53 Conn. App. 873, 874 (1999). The standard of proof in connection with the granting of prejudgment remedies under Connecticut law is limited to probable cause, i.e., ""[t]he trial court, vested with broad discretion, need determine only the likely success of the plaintiff's claim by weighing probabilities… Civil probable cause constitutes a bona fide belief in the existence of the facts essential under the law for the action and such as would warrant a person of ordinary caution, prudence and judgment, under the circumstances, in advancing the action."" Tyler v. Schnabel, 34 Conn. App. 216, 219-20 (1994); Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-278d(a).

Prejudgment remedies are regularly granted to secure potential judgments under leases, see Pitney Bowes Credit Corp. v. Escotel Software, Inc., 2002 WL 451015 (Conn. Super. 2002), as well as deficiency judgments in mortgage foreclosure actions, People's Bank v. Bilmor Building Corp., 28 Conn. App. 809, 823 (1992). In fact, Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-279 authorizes the granting of prejudgment remedies ""upon all complaints containing a money demand against the estate of the defendant, both real and personal."" People's Bank v. Bilmor Building Corp., 28 Conn. App. at 810.