DocketNumber: No. 092984
Citation Numbers: 1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 1311
Judges: BYRNE, J.
Filed Date: 8/7/1990
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Defendant moves to dismiss by citing Connecticut General Statutes Section 34-63 (2)(c) which declares that a partner's right in specific partnership property is not subject to attachment or execution, except on a claim against the partnership. The plaintiff asserts that Connecticut General Statutes Section
Connecticut General Statutes Section 34-63 (1)(c) states "[a] partner's right in specific property is not subject to attachment or execution, except on a claim against the partnership. " Id. See, Telaflora, Inc. v. Whan,
Rather, Section 34-66 provides that "[o]n due application to a competent court by any judgment creditor of a partner, the court which entered the judgment, order, or decree, or any other court, may charge the interest of the debtor partner with payment of the unsatisfied amount of such judgment debt with interest thereon." CT Page 1312 Connecticut General Statutes Section 34-66 (rev'd to 1989). "[T]he statutory charging order is the only means by which a judgment creditor can reach the debtor's partnership interest." Atlantic Mobile Homes, Inc. v. LeFever,
The plaintiffs urge the court, in consideration of Section 34-63, and related statutes within the Uniform Partnership Act, to consider the effect of Connecticut General Statutes Section
When any action is brought to or is pending in the superior court, in which partnership property, or any interest therein, is attached to secure a claim against an individual partner only, any party to the action, or any member or members of such partnership, may file a complaint in the nature of a bill in equity in such court, which may, from time to time, make such order in the premises, either by granting an injunction, appointing a receiver, directing as to the disposition of the partnership property, the collection of the partnership debts and the application of the partnership funds, or otherwise, as to equity appertains. Id. (emphasis added).
Plaintiff argues that Section
Plaintiffs' argument, to the extent that it runs counter to the express provisions of the Uniform Partnership Act, is unconvincing. In Hannon v. O'Dell,
Section
BYRNE, J.