Connecticut § 52-278i (Formerly Sec. 52-282). Order for prejudgment remedy on set-off or counterclaim.

Connecticut Statutes

§ 52-278i — (Formerly Sec. 52-282). Order for prejudgment remedy on set-off or counterclaim.

Connecticut § 52-278i

Title 52Civil Actions

Ch. 903aPrejudgment Remedies

This text of Connecticut § 52-278i ((Formerly Sec. 52-282). Order for prejudgment remedy on set-off or counterclaim.) 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. § 52-278i (2026).

Text

Any defendant in any civil action, upon filing a set-off or counterclaim containing a claim for money damages, may, at any time during the pendency of such action, apply in writing to the court before which such action is pending, or, when such court is not in session, to any judge thereof, for an order for a prejudgment remedy against the estate of the party or parties against whom such claim has been made. Such application shall be substantially in the form provided by subsection (b) of section 52-278c, adapted accordingly. A hearing on such motion shall be held in accordance with the provisions of section 52-278d, adapted accordingly, and if the court, upon consideration of the facts before it, finds that the defendant has shown probable cause to believe that judgment will be rendered i

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

Any defendant in any civil action, upon filing a set-off or counterclaim containing a claim for money damages, may, at any time during the pendency of such action, apply in writing to the court before which such action is pending, or, when such court is not in session, to any judge thereof, for an order for a prejudgment remedy against the estate of the party or parties against whom such claim has been made. Such application shall be substantially in the form provided by subsection (b) of section 52-278c, adapted accordingly. A hearing on such motion shall be held in accordance with the provisions of section 52-278d, adapted accordingly, and if the court, upon consideration of the facts before it, finds that the defendant has shown probable cause to believe that judgment will be rendered in the matter in favor of the defendant, then the prejudgment remedy applied for shall be granted as requested or as modified by the court and the court shall issue such an order, directed to any proper officer, stating the amount and estate to be attached and the time of return, which order shall be served and returned in the same manner as an original writ of attachment, and when returned shall become a part of the files and records in the action. The estate attached shall be held to respond to the final judgment in the same manner as if it had been attached in an action originally brought for the recovery of the amount claimed in such set-off or counterclaim. The provisions of section 52-278e, except subdivision (1) of subsection (a) thereof, and sections 52-278f and 52-278g, adapted accordingly, shall apply to any application for a prejudgment remedy sought under this section.

Legislative History

(1949 Rev., S. 8070; 1959, P.A. 28, S. 180; P.A. 75-459, S. 1, 3; P.A. 82-472, S. 139, 183; P.A. 86-403, S. 102, 132; P.A. 93-431, S. 5, 10.) History: 1959 act removed provisions granting justices of the peace same powers as those of court or judge under section; P.A. 75-459 applied provisions to prejudgment remedies rather than to attachments of property, adding provisions re form of application, hearing procedure and re applicability of Secs. 52-278e to 52-278g; Sec. 52-282 transferred to Sec. 52-278i in 1977; P.A. 82-472 made technical changes to internal section references; P.A. 86-403 made technical change; P.A. 93-431 provided that the prejudgment remedy shall be granted if the court finds the defendant has shown probable cause “to believe that judgment will be rendered in the matter in favor of the defendant” rather than “to sustain the validity of his claim” and made technical changes, effective January 1, 1994. Cited. 141 C. 55; 152 C. 641; 188 C. 69; 226 C. 773. Cited. 38 CS 98.