Branford Manor Associates v. Hargey

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas

Branford Manor Associates v. Hargey

33 Conn. Supp. 85

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas

DecidedMarch 1, 1976

DocketFile No. 26308

StatusPublished

This text of 33 Conn. Supp. 85 (Branford Manor Associates v. Hargey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Branford Manor Associates v. Hargey, 33 Conn. Supp. 85 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Joseph H. Goldberg, J.

The plaintiff is about to commence an action against the defendant and seeks a prejudgment remedy by way of garnishing funds of the defendant in the hands of her attorney. The defendant is a welfare recipient and objects to the granting of the prejudgment remedy, alleging that those funds are still welfare funds and are not attachable under the provisions of § 17-82k of the General Statutes.

The issue appears to be one of first impression in Connecticut. Other jurisdictions have previously [86]*86ruled that funds of a welfare recipient deposited in a hank account were not subject to attachment. MacQuarrie v. Balch, 362 Mass. 151; Guardian Loan Co. of Plainfield v. Baylis, 112 N.J. Super. 44, 46. The reasoning in those cases was that a contrary holding would frustrate the intent of aid to dependent children programs and would allow public funds to be utilized for the benefit of unintended beneficiaries.

Funds of a welfare recipient placed in a client’s fund account of her own attorney would appear to be in a stronger position than a bank account insofar as being protected from attachment under the provisions of § 17-82k. The court finds that those funds are still public aid funds of a welfare recipient being held by her attorney and are not subject to attachment.

Accordingly, the application for the prejudgment remedy is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Joseph H. Goldberg, J.

The plaintiff is about to commence an action against the defendant and seeks a prejudgment remedy by way of garnishing funds of the defendant in the hands of her attorney. The defendant is a welfare recipient and objects to the granting of the prejudgment remedy, alleging that those funds are still welfare funds and are not attachable under the provisions of § 17-82k of the General Statutes.

The issue appears to be one of first impression in Connecticut. Other jurisdictions have previously [86]*86ruled that funds of a welfare recipient deposited in a hank account were not subject to attachment. MacQuarrie v. Balch, 362 Mass. 151; Guardian Loan Co. of Plainfield v. Baylis, 112 N.J. Super. 44, 46. The reasoning in those cases was that a contrary holding would frustrate the intent of aid to dependent children programs and would allow public funds to be utilized for the benefit of unintended beneficiaries.

Funds of a welfare recipient placed in a client’s fund account of her own attorney would appear to be in a stronger position than a bank account insofar as being protected from attachment under the provisions of § 17-82k. The court finds that those funds are still public aid funds of a welfare recipient being held by her attorney and are not subject to attachment.

Accordingly, the application for the prejudgment remedy is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 Conn. Supp. 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/branford-manor-associates-v-hargey-pactcompl-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack