Opinion
No. FST CV 04 4002328
August 30, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
On November 24, 2000, the court, Hiller, J., issued an ex parte prejudgment remedy in favor of the plaintiffs, John P. Kendall and Carl Jenkins, Receiver, in the amount of $5,600,000, against the defendants, Bruce D. Amster, Colton Amster and Red Line Restorations, LLC. After the defendants' motion to reargue or reconsider was denied, they filed an appeal to the Appellate Court on January 11, 2005, which is still pending.
On February 8, 2005, the plaintiffs filed motion #121 for disclosure of assets in aid of the prejudgment remedy that they had obtained. The defendants claim that because of the pending appeal of the granting of the prejudgment remedy, there is an automatic stay and the plaintiffs are not entitled to a disclosure of assets.
General Statutes § 52-2781 © provides that an order granting a prejudgment remedy "shall not be stayed by the taking of an appeal" unless otherwise ordered by the court upon the posting of a bond with surety. If an order for a prejudgment remedy is not stayed by an appeal, there seems no reason to stay the disclosure of assets, the purpose of which is to aid in enforcing such a remedy.
Practice Book § 13-13(a) provides: "The judicial authority may, on motion, order any appearing party against whom a prejudgment remedy has been granted to disclose property in which the party has an interest or debt owing to the party sufficient to satisfy a prejudgment remedy." Subsection "c" of this section provides that the judicial authority may order "disclosure at any time prior to final judgment . . ." This section of the Practice Book does not indicate that it is stayed during the pendency of an appeal.
As stated in Town of Brookfield v. Greenridge, Inc., 35 Conn.Sup. 49, CT Page 11768-kb 51, 393 A.2d 1316 (1977), the protection of a prejudgment remedy is "as necessary to protect the plaintiff who has won at the trial level, when the final disposition of the case awaits appellate proceeding, as it is to protect the same plaintiff before trial." Id., 51. Thus, the court stated that "a prejudgment remedy is available to a plaintiff who has won at the trial level and whose case is on appeal." Id., 52. The same reasoning applies to a disclosure of assets.
Hence, the motion for disclosure of assets is granted, and the objection thereto is overruled.
So Ordered.
William B. Lewis, Judge TR CT Page 11768-kc