DocketNumber: No. CV 96 0150024
Judges: LEWIS, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 12/10/1996
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The plaintiff alleges that it is the assignee of this note, and that a principal balance of approximately $78,000 plus interest remains unpaid. The defendant claims that he has fully paid this note, and that, in any event, because the applicable statute of limitations has expired, the plaintiff may no longer maintain this action.
The court's role in granting or denying a prejudgment remedy CT Page 6501 is to: "determine, in light of its assessment of the legal issues and the credibility of the witnesses, whether a plaintiff has sustained the burden of showing probable cause to sustain the validity of its claim." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Nashv. Weed Duryea Co.,
At a hearing held to address the plaintiff's application for prejudgment remedy, the evidence disclosed that, when the defendant established his $200,000 line of credit, he pledged to Brookfield Bank approximately 613,000 shares of stock of Noise Cancellation Technologies (NCT), a company of which he was the president. The stock was pledged pursuant to an agreement between the defendant and Brookfield Bank. This agreement was embodied in a letter from Brookfield Bank to Gruntal Company, Inc., the defendant's stockbroker, which read: "Per the instructions of Michael J. Parrella we hereby deliver to you 613,520 shares of Noise Cancellation Technologies, Inc. These shares are to be held in escrow and upon sale of the stock 50% of the proceeds are to be remitted to Brookfield Bank, up to $200,000. In the event sale of the stock will not cover $200,000 to Brookfield Bank under the CT Page 6502 50% remittance, the $200,000 is to be remitted to us and the balance to Mr. Parrella."
This stock referred to in this agreement was sold over time for a total sales price of approximately $228,000, and 50 percent of the proceeds were applied to the payment of the $200,000 loan. These payments are reflected on a "loan history card," which was admitted in evidence as a business record. The defendant claims that the entire proceeds of the sale of NCT stock was used to pay off the $200,000 loan, but the debit slips from his checking account at Brookfield Bank reflect payment on the note of 50 percent of the sales proceeds, not 100 percent, and these amounts correspond with the credits reflected on the loan history card. The defendant also contends that the Brookfield Bank's records are confused because in 1988, one year prior to the 1989 loan which is the subject of the present action, the defendant executed a note for $75,000 payable to Brookfield Bank. However, the loan history card and debit slips contradict this argument.
Regarding his statute of limitations argument, the defendant claims that the relevant statute at the time he executed the $200,000 loan in the form of a demand note, was General Statutes §
The defendant has not asserted that the plaintiff or its assignors did not make such a demand within the six years prior to the commencement of this action in 1996. General Statutes §
Even if General Statutes §
Although a different result could ensue when these issues are fully explored at a trial, at this stage of the proceedings, the plaintiff has shown probable cause to sustain the validity of its claim. Hence, a prejudgment remedy of an attachment of the defendant's estate, including stock, motor vehicles, and People's Bank, Bridgeport, or successor, as garnishee, may issue, in the amount of $100,000, to cover principal and interest on the note at issue in this case.
So Ordered.
Dated at Stamford, Connecticut, this 10th day of December, 1996
William B. Lewis, Judge