Connecticut Statutes

§ 52-278n — Motion to disclose property. Order for disclosure. Substitution of surety.

Connecticut·Title 52 Civil Actions·Ch. 903a Prejudgment Remedies
(a)The court may, on motion of a party, order an appearing defendant to disclose property in which he has an interest or debts owing to him sufficient to satisfy a prejudgment remedy. The existence, location and extent of the defendant's interest in such property or debts shall be subject to disclosure. The form and terms of disclosure shall be determined by the court.
(b)A motion to disclose pursuant to this section may be made by attaching it to the application for a prejudgment remedy or may be made at any time after the filing of the application.
(c)The court may order disclosure at any time prior to final judgment after it has determined that the party filing the motion for disclosure has, pursuant to section 52-278d , 52-278e or 52-278i , probable cause sufficient for the granting

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

Connecticut § 52-278n (Motion to disclose property. Order for disclosure. Substitution of surety.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Roberts v. Triplanet Partners, LLC
950 F. Supp. 2d 418 (D. Connecticut, 2013)
19 case citations
Bahrain Telecommunications Co. v. Discoverytel, Inc.
476 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D. Connecticut, 2007)
19 case citations
Insurity, Inc. v. Mutual Group, Ltd.
260 F. Supp. 2d 486 (D. Connecticut, 2003)
4 case citations
Metal Management, Inc. v. Schiavone
514 F. Supp. 2d 227 (D. Connecticut, 2007)
3 case citations
Electro-Methods, Inc. v. Adolf Meller Co.
473 F. Supp. 2d 281 (D. Connecticut, 2007)
1 case citations
Gellatly Petroleum v. Atlantic Tech., No. Cv 950143162s (Oct. 5, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 11419 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
Sentementes v. Lamont
(D. Connecticut, 2021)
Zhen Zhu v. Matsu Corp.
(D. Connecticut, 2022)
Jordan v. Gifford
(D. Connecticut, 2023)
Investors Capital Corp. v. Connecticut National Bank
824 F. Supp. 309 (D. Connecticut, 1993)
Amatulli v. People's Bank
965 F. Supp. 1 (D. Connecticut, 1997)

Legislative History

(P.A. 81-410, S. 1; P.A. 86-403, S. 86, 132; P.A. 93-431, S. 6, 10; P.A. 24-108, S. 35.) History: P.A. 86-403 made technical change in Subsec. (c); P.A. 93-431 amended Subsec. (c) to replace “issuance of a prejudgment remedy” with “granting of a prejudgment remedy”, effective January 1, 1994; P.A. 24-108 added new Subsec. (e) re party not being able to compel disclosure of names and addresses of clients of an individual or entity that provides professional services when disclosure would violate state or federal law or applicable rules of professional conduct, and redesignated existing Subsec. (e) as Subsec. (f). Cited. 188 C. 69; 226 C. 773. Cited. 19 CA 256; 29 CA 48. Cited. 38 CS 98.

Nearby Sections

15
View on official source ↗