Capatani v. North Atl. Planning Corp., No. Cv 90-0440426s (Jan. 6, 1992)

Connecticut Superior Court

Capatani v. North Atl. Planning Corp., No. Cv 90-0440426s (Jan. 6, 1992)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 2

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJanuary 6, 1992

DocketNo. CV 90-0440426S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 2 (Capatani v. North Atl. Planning Corp., No. Cv 90-0440426s (Jan. 6, 1992)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Capatani v. North Atl. Planning Corp., No. Cv 90-0440426s (Jan. 6, 1992), 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 2 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The defendant American National Bank has moved to strike count nine of the plaintiffs' complaint on the grounds that the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), Conn. Gen. Stat. sec. 42-110a et. seq. does not apply to banks.

Certain courts have held that CUTPA does not apply to banks. Bristol Savings Bank v. Sattler, 4 CSCR 351 (May 15, 1989, Aronson, J.); Peoples Bank v. Horesco, 1 CSCR 62 (April 21, 1986, Jacobson, J.) aff'd on other grounds, 205 Conn. 319 (1987). In ruling upon issues related to CUTPA, the Connecticut courts are guided by the interpretation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45 (a)(1), provided by the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts. Conn. Gen. Stat. sec. 42-110a. Since banks are expressly exempt from the Federal Trade Commission Act, some courts have held CUTPA inapplicable to banks. Sattler, 4 CSCR at 351; Horesco, 1 CSCR at 62.

However, the majority of superior courts have held that CUTPA applies to banks. See e.g. Economic Development v. Cititrust, 3 Conn. L. Rptr. No. 16, 517 (April 15, 1991, Dranginis, J.); Peterson v. People's Bank, 1 Conn. L. Rptr. 73 (December 5, 1989, Freed, J.); Ebersol McCormick v. Torrington Savings Bank, 4 CSCR 499 (July 3, 1989, Pickett, J.); Eylward v. Bank of Boston Connecticut, 4 Conn. L. Rptr. No. 15, 504 (August 25, 1991, Burns, J.); Weisman v. Westport Bank and Trust, 1 CSCR 283 (June 15, 1986, Zoarski, J.).

The reasoning of those courts which have held CUTPA applicable to banks was well-expressed in Eylward where the court stated that "the burden of proving an exemption from CUTPA . . . is on the party claiming the exemption. Conn. Gen. CT Page 3 Stat. sec. 42-110c(b); Weisman, 1 CSCR at 284. Courts should `not interpret legislation to enlarge on a legislative exemption.' Weisman, 1 CSCR at 284, quoting State v. Turello,183 Conn. 330, 335 (1981). `CUTPA has no explicit exemption which exclude[s] banks from its amhit.' Ebersol McCormick v. Torrington Savings Bank, 4 CSCR at 500." Eylward, 4 Conn. L. Rptr. No. 15 at 504. Moreover, "the Legislature could have specifically exempted banks from CUTPA if such an exemption had been intended." Id. citing Economic Development Associates, 3 Conn. L. Rptr. No. 16 at 520.

Accordingly, the motion to strike is denied.

JOHN M. BYRNE JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT

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

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The defendant American National Bank has moved to strike count nine of the plaintiffs' complaint on the grounds that the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), Conn. Gen. Stat. sec. 42-110a et. seq. does not apply to banks.

Certain courts have held that CUTPA does not apply to banks. Bristol Savings Bank v. Sattler, 4 CSCR 351 (May 15, 1989, Aronson, J.); Peoples Bank v. Horesco, 1 CSCR 62 (April 21, 1986, Jacobson, J.) aff'd on other grounds, 205 Conn. 319 (1987). In ruling upon issues related to CUTPA, the Connecticut courts are guided by the interpretation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45 (a)(1), provided by the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts. Conn. Gen. Stat. sec. 42-110a. Since banks are expressly exempt from the Federal Trade Commission Act, some courts have held CUTPA inapplicable to banks. Sattler, 4 CSCR at 351; Horesco, 1 CSCR at 62.

However, the majority of superior courts have held that CUTPA applies to banks. See e.g. Economic Development v. Cititrust, 3 Conn. L. Rptr. No. 16, 517 (April 15, 1991, Dranginis, J.); Peterson v. People's Bank, 1 Conn. L. Rptr. 73 (December 5, 1989, Freed, J.); Ebersol McCormick v. Torrington Savings Bank, 4 CSCR 499 (July 3, 1989, Pickett, J.); Eylward v. Bank of Boston Connecticut, 4 Conn. L. Rptr. No. 15, 504 (August 25, 1991, Burns, J.); Weisman v. Westport Bank and Trust, 1 CSCR 283 (June 15, 1986, Zoarski, J.).

The reasoning of those courts which have held CUTPA applicable to banks was well-expressed in Eylward where the court stated that "the burden of proving an exemption from CUTPA . . . is on the party claiming the exemption. Conn. Gen. CT Page 3 Stat. sec. 42-110c(b); Weisman, 1 CSCR at 284. Courts should `not interpret legislation to enlarge on a legislative exemption.' Weisman, 1 CSCR at 284, quoting State v. Turello,183 Conn. 330, 335 (1981). `CUTPA has no explicit exemption which exclude[s] banks from its amhit.' Ebersol McCormick v. Torrington Savings Bank, 4 CSCR at 500." Eylward, 4 Conn. L. Rptr. No. 15 at 504. Moreover, "the Legislature could have specifically exempted banks from CUTPA if such an exemption had been intended." Id. citing Economic Development Associates, 3 Conn. L. Rptr. No. 16 at 520.

Accordingly, the motion to strike is denied.

JOHN M. BYRNE JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capatani-v-north-atl-planning-corp-no-cv-90-0440426s-jan-6-1992-connsuperct-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack