DocketNumber: No. CV 95 0544901 S
Citation Numbers: 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 1331-HHHHH
Judges: WAGNER, J.
Filed Date: 2/21/1996
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
On December 5, 1991, the Patrons' attorney placed a writ of garnishment in the hands of a sheriff who garnished various banks where the Konovers had accounts and these garnishments were subsequently replaced by bonds by the Konovers. No CT Page 1331-IIIII disclosure of assets was ever made in response to the Motion filed.
In this action the Konovers have filed a three count complaint, alleging in the first count that the garnishments were wrongfully made in violation of the court order of November 15, 1991; in the second count tortious interference; and in the third count wilful and malicious conduct and abuse of process. Damages alleged include premiums paid for the bonds furnished in lieu of garnishment.
Both parties have moved for summary judgment on the basis of the court order of November 15, 1991.
Interpreting another judge's order poses some unusual difficulty, especially since each motion seeks summary judgment.
There appears to be material differences of fact as to whether in the context of the hearing preceding the order of November 15, 1991, there was a common understanding or representations made that a disclosure of assets would be made in a reasonable time and whether the garnishment was executed before a reasonable time had passed.
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is denied because this court is unable to conclude that the order was strictly limited to assets which might be disclosed when in fact no disclosure was made. Moreover there are further differences of fact as to the elements of the causes of action alleged by plaintiffs in their three counts.
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is denied because, in view of these differences of fact, plaintiffs should have the opportunity to prove that in view of all the circumstances, not known to this court, it was the reasonable understanding of the parties that no pre-judgment remedy would be pursued until there was a disclosure of assets, and whether such disclosure was to be made in a reasonable time; also whether the actions of the defendants were wilful or malicious.
Motions for Summary Judgment denied.
Wagner, J. CT Page 1331-JJJJJ