Per Curiam.
The sole issue in this commercial appeal is whether, after a judgment creditor has served a payor bank with an execution order garnishing funds in a depositor’s account, General Statutes § 52-367a1 permits the bank to exercise its right of setoff against these same funds, if the bank acts within the midnight deadline established by that statute. The plaintiff, Eklof Marine Corporation, a judgment creditor of National Oil Service, Inc. (National Oil), filed a two count complaint against the defendant American National Bank (bank), alleging that the bank had violated § 52-367a and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act [169] (CUTPA); General Statutes § 42-110b;2 by refusing to pay funds properly garnished by the plaintiff. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. After denying the plaintiffs motion, the trial court rendered summary judgment in favor of the bank. The plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199 (c). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The facts are undisputed. The plaintiff recovered a valid judgment for $32,471.21 against National Oil in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. After this judgment had been registered with the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, a clerk of that court issued a “bank execution order” for the collection of the amount of the judgment from any Connecticut banking institution. National Oil maintained a deposit account with the bank. On June 18,1992, when the execution order was served on the bank, the National Oil account had a balance of $21,556.09.
On August 8, 1986, National Oil had borrowed $100,000 from the bank. This debt was in the form of a demand note. On June 18, 1992, the note was in default. Within an hour of receipt of the execution order, the bank exercised a right of setoff in accordance with express terms in its deposit account agreement with National Oil. The bank thereafter responded to the execution order by informing the sheriff that there were no funds in the National Oil account.
On the basis of this factual record, the trial court denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and [170] granted the bank’s motion for summary judgment. The court ruled that the bank had exercised its right of setoff within the time frame established by § 52-367a and, accordingly, that the bank’s setoff took priority over the plaintiff’s execution order. In this appeal from the trial court’s judgment in favor of the bank, the plaintiff renews its claim that service of its execution notice on the bank established the plaintiff’s legal right to the funds in the National Oil account and that thereafter the bank could no longer exercise any right of setoff. We disagree.
The plaintiff’s claim cannot succeed in light of the reasoning of our decision, during the pendency of the plaintiff’s appeal, in Normand Josef Enterprises, Inc. v. Connecticut National Bank, 230 Conn. 486, 646 A.2d 1289 (1994). In that case, we concluded that “§ 52-367a imposes a midnight deadline on a bank served with an execution. The midnight deadline arguably was intended by the legislature to apply directly even in transactions not governed by [General Statutes] § 42a-4-303. Alternatively, if § 52-367a has no express time limitation for transactions that are not governed by § 42a-4-303, the bank must act within a reasonable time, and that reasonable time period is, by analogy, defined as the midnight deadline that is the baseline generally . . . governing payouts by banks.” Id., 503. The term “midnight deadline” is defined by General Statutes § 42a-4-104 (a) (10) as “midnight on [a bank’s] next banking day following the banking day on which it receives the relevant . . . notice . . . .”3 General [171] Statutes §§ 42a-4-301 and 42a-4-3024 establish the midnight deadline as the standard time frame within which a payor bank must act on demands for payment.5 Normand Josef Enterprises, Inc. v. Connecticut National Bank, supra, 502-503.
In Normand Josef Enterprises, Inc. v. Connecticut National Bank, supra, 230 Conn. 507-508, we held that, [172] once a bank has been served with a valid execution order, the bank violates § 52-367a if it fails to execute its right of setoff within the applicable midnight deadline. A fortiori, we hold today that a bank does not violate § 52-367a if, as in this case, it executes its right of setoff before the expiration of its midnight, deadline.
Because the plaintiff’s CUTPA claim was predicated on the bank’s alleged violation of § 52-367a, the plaintiff cannot succeed on either count of its complaint. The trial court, therefore, correctly granted the bank’s motion for summary judgment.
The judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Per Curiam.
The sole issue in this commercial appeal is whether, after a judgment creditor has served a payor bank with an execution order garnishing funds in a depositor’s account, General Statutes § 52-367a1 permits the bank to exercise its right of setoff against these same funds, if the bank acts within the midnight deadline established by that statute. The plaintiff, Eklof Marine Corporation, a judgment creditor of National Oil Service, Inc. (National Oil), filed a two count complaint against the defendant American National Bank (bank), alleging that the bank had violated § 52-367a and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act [169] (CUTPA); General Statutes § 42-110b;2 by refusing to pay funds properly garnished by the plaintiff. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. After denying the plaintiffs motion, the trial court rendered summary judgment in favor of the bank. The plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199 (c). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The facts are undisputed. The plaintiff recovered a valid judgment for $32,471.21 against National Oil in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. After this judgment had been registered with the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, a clerk of that court issued a “bank execution order” for the collection of the amount of the judgment from any Connecticut banking institution. National Oil maintained a deposit account with the bank. On June 18,1992, when the execution order was served on the bank, the National Oil account had a balance of $21,556.09.
On August 8, 1986, National Oil had borrowed $100,000 from the bank. This debt was in the form of a demand note. On June 18, 1992, the note was in default. Within an hour of receipt of the execution order, the bank exercised a right of setoff in accordance with express terms in its deposit account agreement with National Oil. The bank thereafter responded to the execution order by informing the sheriff that there were no funds in the National Oil account.
On the basis of this factual record, the trial court denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and [170] granted the bank’s motion for summary judgment. The court ruled that the bank had exercised its right of setoff within the time frame established by § 52-367a and, accordingly, that the bank’s setoff took priority over the plaintiff’s execution order. In this appeal from the trial court’s judgment in favor of the bank, the plaintiff renews its claim that service of its execution notice on the bank established the plaintiff’s legal right to the funds in the National Oil account and that thereafter the bank could no longer exercise any right of setoff. We disagree.
The plaintiff’s claim cannot succeed in light of the reasoning of our decision, during the pendency of the plaintiff’s appeal, in Normand Josef Enterprises, Inc. v. Connecticut National Bank, 230 Conn. 486, 646 A.2d 1289 (1994). In that case, we concluded that “§ 52-367a imposes a midnight deadline on a bank served with an execution. The midnight deadline arguably was intended by the legislature to apply directly even in transactions not governed by [General Statutes] § 42a-4-303. Alternatively, if § 52-367a has no express time limitation for transactions that are not governed by § 42a-4-303, the bank must act within a reasonable time, and that reasonable time period is, by analogy, defined as the midnight deadline that is the baseline generally . . . governing payouts by banks.” Id., 503. The term “midnight deadline” is defined by General Statutes § 42a-4-104 (a) (10) as “midnight on [a bank’s] next banking day following the banking day on which it receives the relevant . . . notice . . . .”3 General [171] Statutes §§ 42a-4-301 and 42a-4-3024 establish the midnight deadline as the standard time frame within which a payor bank must act on demands for payment.5 Normand Josef Enterprises, Inc. v. Connecticut National Bank, supra, 502-503.
In Normand Josef Enterprises, Inc. v. Connecticut National Bank, supra, 230 Conn. 507-508, we held that, [172] once a bank has been served with a valid execution order, the bank violates § 52-367a if it fails to execute its right of setoff within the applicable midnight deadline. A fortiori, we hold today that a bank does not violate § 52-367a if, as in this case, it executes its right of setoff before the expiration of its midnight, deadline.
Because the plaintiff’s CUTPA claim was predicated on the bank’s alleged violation of § 52-367a, the plaintiff cannot succeed on either count of its complaint. The trial court, therefore, correctly granted the bank’s motion for summary judgment.
The judgment is affirmed.
“(b) If a demand item is received by a payor bank for credit on its books, it may return the item or send notice of dishonor and may revoke any credit given or recover the amount thereof withdrawn by its customer, if it acts within the time limit and in the manner specified in subsection (a).”
General Statutes § 42a-4-302 provides in relevant part: “payor bank’s responsibility for late return of item, (a) If an item is presented to and received by a payor bank, the bank is accountable for the amount of: (1) A demand item, other than a documentary draft, whether properly payable or not, if the bank, in any case in which it is not also the depositary bank, retains the item beyond midnight of the banking day of receipt without settling for it or, whether or not it is also the depositary bank, does not pay or return the item or send notice of dishonor until after its midnight deadline . . . .”