Connecticut Statutes
§ 52-278c — Documents required. Forms. Scheduling a hearing. Service on defendant. Notice and claim form. Request for hearing by defendant.
Connecticut § 52-278c
This text of Connecticut § 52-278c (Documents required. Forms. Scheduling a hearing. Service on defendant. Notice and claim form. Request for hearing by defendant.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-278c (2026).
Text
(a)Except as provided in sections 52-278e and 52-278f, any person desiring to secure a prejudgment remedy shall attach his proposed unsigned writ, summons and complaint to the following documents:
(1)An application, directed to the Superior Court to which the action is made returnable, for the prejudgment remedy requested;
(2)An affidavit sworn to by the plaintiff or any competent affiant setting forth a statement of facts sufficient to show that there is probable cause that a judgment in the amount of the prejudgment remedy sought, or in an amount greater than the amount of the prejudgment remedy sought, taking into account any known defenses, counterclaims or set-offs, will be rendered in the matter in favor of the plaintiff;
(3)A form of order that a hearing be held before the court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Pinsky v. Duncan
898 F.2d 852 (Second Circuit, 1990)
Cordoba Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Maro Shipping Ltd.
494 F. Supp. 183 (D. Connecticut, 1980)
Prete v. Lepore
125 F.R.D. 572 (D. Connecticut, 1989)
Davila v. Secure Pharmacy Plus
329 F. Supp. 2d 311 (D. Connecticut, 2004)
Darrah-Wantz v. Brown
138 F.R.D. 20 (D. Connecticut, 1991)
Danmar Associates v. Porter
43 B.R. 423 (D. Connecticut, 1984)
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Isban
870 F. Supp. 24 (D. Connecticut, 1994)
Getchell v. Rohan, No. Cv 94 55793 S (Dec. 2, 1994)
1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 12191-JJJ (Connecticut Superior Court, 1994)
Agnes-Sue Associates v. Cerino, No. Cv93 04 27 66s (Sep. 14, 1994)
1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 9203 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1994)
Ford v. Store Twenty Four, Inc., No. Cv 99 042 45 50 (Apr. 23, 1999)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 5359 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1999)
Block v. Statewide Grievance Committee, No. Cv 99 0495866s (Nov. 3, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 13565 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)
Stone v. Frederick Hobby Assoc. II, No. Cv 00 0181620 S (Jul. 10, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 9559 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Block v. Statewide Grievance Comm., No. Cv 99 0495866 S (Nov. 3, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 14136 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)
Townsend v. Commissioner of Correction, No. Cv-00-0444380 (Oct. 20, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 13051 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)
Chapman Lumber v. Scalzo, No. Cv 00 0084042s (Mar. 15, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 3523 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Gagne v. Vaccaro, No. 95-0372611-S (Dec. 10, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 16054 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Cristwood Contracting, Inc. v. Badera, No. Cv 94-0464443s (Mar. 9, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 2511 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
Emerson v. Colon, No. Pjr Cv-96-0559867-S (Oct. 28, 1997)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 10867 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1997)
Bloomingdale Road Ltd. v. Greenwich, No. X02-Cv 99-0160321 S (Oct. 2, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 12169 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)
Legislative History
(P.A. 73-431, S. 3, 8; P.A. 81-410, S. 6; P.A. 83-587, S. 64, 96; P.A. 87-589, S. 14, 87; P.A. 90-230, S. 67, 101; P.A. 93-431, S. 1, 10; P.A. 00-99, S. 111, 154.) History: P.A. 81-410 substituted “superior court for the judicial district of” for “court”, “sufficient property of the defendant to secure such sum” for “the following described real property of the defendant located in the town of” and eliminated the description requirement; and substituted “possession property” for “hands the goods, effects and estate” and “actions” for “doings”; P.A. 83-587 made a technical amendment to Subsec. (d); P.A. 87-589 made technical changes, restoring text inadvertently omitted because of computer error; P.A. 90-230 corrected an omission; P.A. 93-431 amended Subsec. (a) by requiring in Subdiv. (2) that the affidavit set forth facts sufficient to show that there is probable cause that a judgment “in the amount of the prejudgment remedy sought, or in an amount greater than the amount of the prejudgment remedy sought, taking into account any known defenses, counterclaims or set-offs,” will be rendered in favor of the plaintiff and by providing in Subdiv. (3) that the form of order require notice of the hearing “complying with subsection (e) of this section” be given to the defendant, amended Subsec. (b) to require that the plaintiff represent in his application that there is probable cause that a judgment “in the amount of the prejudgment remedy sought, or in an amount greater than the amount of the prejudgment remedy sought, taking into account any known defenses, counterclaims or set-offs,” will be rendered in favor of the applicant and to provide that the order require the plaintiff to give notice to the defendant “in accordance with section 52-278c of the general statutes” and that “such notice as is required under subsection (e) of section 52-278c” be served upon the defendant, added Subsec. (e) requiring the application to be accompanied by a notice and claim form and specifying the language concerning the rights of the defendant contained therein, added Subsec. (f) requiring the notice and claim form to contain the name and address of any third person holding property of the defendant who is to be made a garnishee and the procedure to contest the application or claim an exemption, and added Subsec. (g) authorizing a defendant to request a hearing and specifying the manner in which a hearing may be requested, effective January 1, 1994; P.A. 00-99 replaced reference to sheriff and deputy sheriff with state marshal in Subsec. (b), effective December 1, 2000; (Revisor's note: In 2001 the references in Subsec. (b) of this section to the date “19..” were changed editorially by the Revisors to “20..” to reflect the new millennium). Cited. 172 C. 577; 173 C. 426; 176 C. 432; 178 C. 393; 181 C. 524; 184 C. 85; 185 C. 37; 186 C. 329; 188 C. 69; 193 C. 174; 196 C. 359; 200 C. 406; 203 C. 475; 208 C. 13; 213 C. 612; 222 C. 361; Id., 541. Not unconstitutionally vague on its face. 224 C. 29. Cited. 226 C. 773; Id., 812. Cited. 1 CA 188; 3 CA 404; 4 CA 510; 5 CA 90; 6 CA 180; 11 CA 420; 14 CA 579; 21 CA 661; 25 CA 28; 27 CA 621; 28 CA 809; 32 CA 118; 33 CA 223; 34 CA 303; Id., 801; 39 CA 149; Id., 183; 45 CA 324; 46 CA 399. Court has subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's application when plaintiff is seeking a prejudgment remedy on a contemplated domestic action to enforce an agreement. 144 CA 793. Cited. 33 CS 693; 38 CS 98. Subsec. (a): Plaintiff cannot base application for prejudgment remedy on action to enforce a foreign judgment until the foreign judgment is obtained; action referred to in Subdiv. (1) must be an action that plaintiff is about to bring in Connecticut upon which a Connecticut court will render judgment; prejudgment remedy statutes do not provide authorization for issuance of prejudgment remedy to secure an action brought to enforce a potential foreign judgment. 268 C. 264.
Nearby Sections
15
§ 52-109
Substituted plaintiff.Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
Connecticut § 52-278c, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/statute/ct/52-278c.