Shorrock v. Law, No. Cv96 0151339 S (Nov. 13, 1996)

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 9062
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedNovember 13, 1996
DocketNo. CV96 0151339 S
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 9062 (Shorrock v. Law, No. Cv96 0151339 S (Nov. 13, 1996)) 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
Shorrock v. Law, No. Cv96 0151339 S (Nov. 13, 1996), 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 9062 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON PREJUDGMENT REMEDY This case came to this court as a contested prejudgment remedy.

The plaintiffs are Valerie J. Shorrock, John E. McConnaughy, and Barn Again, Inc. The defendants are Philip Law, Valerie Law a/k/a Valerie Flowers, The Forgotten Garden, Inc., and Barn Yesterday Limited Partnership.

At the hearing before this court Valerie Shorrock testified, the business relationship between the parties began in the fall of 1995, when Philip Law approached Valerie Shorrock about a possible business venture to be known as Barn Again. When John McConnaughy became involved, the scope of the business relationship expanded to include other companies owned by Philip Law and Valerie Law: Forgotten Garden, Barn Yesterday and Costa Restauracion. John McConnaughy agreed to lend $400,000 on behalf of himself and Valerie Shorrock to the defendants. In return for this loan and a subsequent capital investment, John McConnaughy and Valerie Shorrock were to receive a 50% ownership interest in Forgotten Garden, Barn Yesterday and Costa Restauracion, another company owned by Philip Law.

Valerie Shorrock testified that John McConnaughy lent the $400,000 to the defendants in two checks dated November 13, 1995, one in the amount of $160,000 payable to Forgotten Garden and the CT Page 9063 other in the amount of $240,000 payable to Barn Yesterday. (Exhibits 2 and 3).

Philip Law executed a promissory note evidencing the $400,000 Loan on December 5, 1996 (the "$400,000 Note"). Valerie Law also signed the $400,000 Note. After Valerie Law signed the $400,000 Note, Philip Law delivered the $400,000 Note to John McConnaughy. The $400,000 Note was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 4.

John McConnaughy demanded payment in full of the $400,000 Loan on February 8, 1996. Philip Law admitted that the interest payment due on February 17, 1996 was not made. The $400,000 Loan was not repaid.

John McConnaughy also lent $16,000 to Forgotten Garden in December 1995 (the $16,000 Note). Valerie Law executed a promissory note evidencing the $16,000 Loan, which was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 5. Payment in full was demanded on February 8, 1996. Valerie Law testified that part of the loan was paid by check to John McConnaughy and the balance was set off against obligations allegedly owed to Forgotten Garden by Barn Again.

The notes are in default and are attached to this decision. The notes provide for security and waive a hearing under our Prejudgment Remedy Statutes.

Valerie Shorrock also testified that Philip Law and Valerie Law had failed to perform their obligations under the business arrangement between the parties. Mohammed Elnahaus confirmed that the Laws had not honored their responsibilities to Barn Again.

Many of the material facts established by plaintiffs were not disputed by defendants. Plaintiffs have demonstrated probable cause that they are likely to succeed at the trial on the merits of their claims for defendants' breach of contract, failure to pay the $400,000 Note, and failure to pay the $16,000 Note in full.

The court denies the extraordinary remedy of a receiver in this matter at this time.

In accordance with Connecticut General Statutes § 52-504, the Supreme Court has held that an application for a receiver is within the sound legal discretion of the court. Chatfield Co. v.CT Page 9064Coffey Laundries, Inc., 111 Conn. 497, 501 (1930). However, the Supreme Court has further recognized that the appointment of a receiver is a drastic remedy. Masoth v. Central Bus Corp.,104 Conn. 683, 695 (1926).

In determining whether a receiver is necessary the court must weigh the availability and adequacy of another remedy. ChatfieldCo. v. Coffey Laundries, Inc., supra. If after such examination "it appears that some expedient action or remedy, less stringent in effect than a receivership, will meet the situation, that course should be taken." Massoth v. Central Bus Corp., supra. Here, after such examination a modification of the existing prejudgment remedy is less drastic and better suited for the circumstances.

Plaintiffs have established probable cause that they would recover judgment from defendants in the amount of at least $416,000. The net equity in the real property subject to the exparte prejudgment attachment was less than $17,000. Plaintiffs are entitled to a modification of the prejudgment attachment to include other property having an additional value of $400,000

The court orders an attachment as follows:

To attach the following described property of defendants Philip Law, Valerie Law a/k/a Valerie Flowers ("Valerie Law"), Forgotten Garden and Barn Yesterday, in addition to the real property belonging to defendant Valerie Law already attached pursuant to this court's March 28, 1996 Order, to the value of $400,000.

(a) Property belonging to Philip Law:

(1) The general partnership interest in defendant Barn Yesterday Limited Partnership, a Connecticut limited partnership created June 22, 1995.

(2) All partnership distributions and income to which Philip Law is entitled as the general partner of Barn Yesterday.

(3) All funds in the bank account of Philip Law, Account No. 401-313-1, located at Westport Bank Trust Company.

(4) All funds in any other bank account belonging to Philip Law. CT Page 9065

(b) Property belonging to Valerie Law:

(1) All shares owned by Valerie Law in defendant Forgotten Garden.

(2) All dividends and income to which Valerie Law is entitled as a shareholder of Forgotten Garden.

(3) All funds in any bank account belonging to Valerie Law.

(c) Property belonging to Forgotten Garden:

(1) All funds in the following bank accounts in the name of Forgotten Garden located at Westport Bank Trust Company:

Account No. 4026748; Account No. 4039629; Account No. 4040341; Account No. 4054334; Savings Account No. 5000726364; and two other savings accounts

(2) All accounts receivable.

(3) All inventory belonging to Forgotten Garden and located in its store at 643 Danbury Road, Wilton, Connecticut.

(4) All inventory belonging to Forgotten Garden and located in its warehouse at 644 Danbury Road, Wilton, Connecticut.

(5) All inventory belonging to Forgotten Garden and located in its storage space at 80 Lone Town Road, Redding, Connecticut.

(6) All inventory belonging to Forgotten Garden and located in the residence of Philip Law and Valerie Law at 80 Lone Town Road, Redding, Connecticut.

(d) Property belonging to Barn Yesterday:

(1) All funds in the checking account of Barn Yesterday located at Westport Bank Trust Company. CT Page 9066

(3) All inventory belonging to Barn Yesterday and located in its premises at 322 Ethan Allen Highway, Ridgefield, Connecticut.

(4) All property contributed by Philip Law to Barn Yesterday pursuant to an Agreement of Limited Partnership made June 22, 1995 between Philip Law and James McFarland.

KARAZIN, J.

COMMERCIAL DEMAND PROMISSORY NOTE

$400,000.00 New Canaan, Connecticut December 5, 1995

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned (the "Makers"), hereby unconditionally promise to pay, jointly and severally, to the order of John E.

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

Related

Minotte E. Chatfield Co. v. Coffey Laundries, Inc.
150 A. 511 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1930)
Massoth v. Central Bus Corporation
134 A. 236 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 9062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shorrock-v-law-no-cv96-0151339-s-nov-13-1996-connsuperct-1996.