Opinion
No. CV90 0270306 S
November 15, 1990.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: APPLICATION FOR PREJUDGMENT REMEDY
Plaintiff claims that he did surveying work for defendants Lehn and Woehrle and was not paid. He now seeks to reach their interest in a partnership by way of a prejudgment attachment.
Defendants Lehn and Woerhle claim that, as this is not a partnership debt, their interests in the partnership are protected by Connecticut General Statutes 34-63(2)(c) which states in relevant part:
A partner's right in specific partnership property is not subject to attachment or execution, except on a claim against the partnership.
Plaintiff argues that Connecticut General Statutes 52-299 and 52-300 implicitly authorize attachments of a partner's interest for a non-partnership debt. He argues that this claimed conflict in the statutes should be resolved by allowing the attachment on the public policy ground that a debtor's property ought to be reachable by his creditors.
The court is not convinced that the statutes are in conflict. Connecticut General Statutes 52-299 and 52-300 do not authorize attachments. They provide procedures for relief when such an attachment is actually made. Prior to the enactment of the prejudgment remedy statutes in 1973, attorneys could direct an attachment by a sheriff without prior court approval. The statutes relied on by plaintiff were obviously designed to give the court power to protect the interest of the other parties as well as the creditor when such an attachment was made.
"Sec. 52-299. 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."
"Sec. 52-300. Any court or judge before whom any proceedings relative to the attachment of partnership property in a suit against one of the partners may be pending may order the same to be discontinued, when security is given to the plaintiff in the original action, satisfactory to such court or judge, for the payment of the judgment that may be recovered in such original action, or for the application thereto of an amount not exceeding the debtor's interest in the whole partnership property."
The predecessors to Connecticut General Statutes 52-299 and 52-300 go back to 1875 or earlier. (Plaintiff's brief, p. 3.) The statute prohibiting attachment of a partner's interest for a non-partnership debt was enacted in 1961. Even if the statutes were considered to be in conflict, under recognized rules of statutory construction, the later statute prohibiting attachment (Connecticut General Statutes 34-63) would prevail. 73 Am. Jur.2d, Statutes, Sec. 255. Plaintiff's argument that because 52-299 was amended in 1976 it becomes the "later" statute is not persuasive. The 1976 amendment simply reflected the elimination of the Court of Common Pleas and the transfer of all trial jurisdiction to the Superior Court as of July 1, 1978.
For the reasons stated, the application for prejudgment remedy is denied.
E. EUGENE SPEAR, JUDGE