Conn. Gen. Stat. § 37-1 — Connecticut Code / Title 37 / Chapter 673 / Section 37-1
Sec. 37-1. Legal rate. Accrual as addition to debt.
Status: repealed

(b) Unless otherwise provided by agreement, interest at the legal rate from the date of maturity of a debt shall accrue as an addition to the debt.

Allowed because of contract express or implied or as damages. 22 C. 392; 72 C. 705. Note “with fifteen per cent after maturity”; the per cent held to be interest and not damages. 42 C. 524. Effect of validating act subsequently repealed on usurious contract for interest. Id., 574; 56 C. 214. A note on which the interest is payable quarterly at the legal rate is not usurious. 44 C. 494. The law takes note of the running of interest at the legal rate where the principal is due. 56 C. 114. The taking of interest in advance on a demand note constitutes an agreement to forbear for that time. 63 C. 87. Generally, any rate agreed on is lawful. 76 C. 388. Agreed rate governs till default, then legal rate; exceptions. 78 C. 323. Effect of insolvency of bank on its liability to pay interest. 88 C. 206. Cited. 126 C. 461; 147 C. 225. An agreed interest rate will prevail over the stated rate in statute. 160 C. 534. Cited. 177 C. 149; 186 C. 612; 188 C. 316. Postmaturity interest continues to accrue at the legal rate on the unpaid balance of the loan even after entry of judgment and until outstanding balance is paid in full, unless the parties agree otherwise. 315 C. 433.

Cited. 13 CA 330; 15 CA 718; 44 CA 402. Statute not applicable where there is a wrongful detention of funds and no forbearance. 109 CA 691.

Cited. 10 CS 240. Statutory rate of interest does not apply unless there is an expressed or implied agreement to pay interest. 29 CS 114. Cited. 38 CS 610; 41 CS 538.
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 37-3c — Connecticut Code / Title 37 / Chapter 673 / Section 37-3c
Sec. 37-3c. Rate of interest recoverable in condemnation cases.
Status: in_force

Section unambiguously dictates that when the “judgment of compensation” does not include a rate of interest, the default rate applies. There is no authority allowing a trial court to adopt another rate of interest. 330 C. 200.

Cited. 21 CA 359. Trial court's statement that final award included, “all claims for interest, costs and appraisal fees,” precluded proper application of statute by preventing landowner from claiming interest on damages awarded to him. 109 CA 16.
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 37-6 — Connecticut Code / Title 37 / Chapter 673 / Section 37-6
Sec. 37-6. Certain expenses not to be charged to the borrower.
Status: in_force

Cited. 113 C. 571; 120 C. 665; 145 C. 342, 465; 172 C. 395; 211 C. 613.

Cited. 6 CA 691.

Cited. 1 CS 160.
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 37-4 — Connecticut Code / Title 37 / Chapter 673 / Section 37-4
Sec. 37-4. Loans at greater rate than twelve per cent prohibited.
Status: in_force

Meaning of “mortgage”; assignment of wages. 82 C. 232. Section valid. Id.; 83 C. 1; 218 U.S. 563. Whether contract is made in evasion of section is question of fact. 91 C. 601. Does not apply to “guarantee of loan”. 93 C. 647. Particularity required in information. Id., 646. Does not apply to receipt of higher rate of interest as a gift. Id., 668. “Agreement” constitutes separate offense. Id., 669. Necessity of proving wrongful intent. 94 C. 148; 101 C. 558; 118 C. 4. Defense of usury on part of endorser in due course. 97 C. 320; 99 C. 684. Defense of usury of accommodation endorser with knowledge of usurious agreement. 101 C. 560; 102 C. 37. Cited. 107 C. 280. A larger price fixed in good faith by a seller because sale is on time and not for cash does not make contract usurious. 110 C. 259; 117 C. 254. Cited. 111 C. 87; 113 C. 571. History of usury statutes. 120 C. 665. Voluntary taking or reservation of more than legal interest is per se usurious; specific intent to violate section is not essential. 123 C. 94. Usurious note, found not to represent loan as such but to constitute separate obligation given as collateral security, will not prevent recovery on loan. 124 C. 489. Cited. 125 C. 317. Renewal notes as tainted with usury of original. 126 C. 339. Cited. 128 C. 61; 130 C. 19. Method of determining if note violates usury statutes; bonus for use of money counts as interest; intent to violate statute as a matter of law. Id., 552. Jury could reasonably have found that transaction was a usurious loan in violation of statute rather than a bona fide sale of the note. 138 C. 636. Cited. 139 C. 425; 141 C. 301; 145 C. 342, 465; 149 C. 159; 153 C. 400; 172 C. 395; Id., 520; 180 C. 491; 193 C. 304; 211 C. 613. Section applies to pawnbroker repurchase agreements. 313 C. 535.

Cited. 2 CA 119. Statute does not apply to sales on credit. 3 CA 306. Cited. 6 CA 88. Provisions of this statute and Sec. 37-8 bar a deficiency judgment in this case. Id., 691. Cited. 21 CA 131; 27 CA 628; 31 CA 455; 41 CA 754; 44 CA 439; Id., 471. Statute does not apply when indebtedness arose from purchase of educational and related services, rather than from a loan of money. 53 CA 455. Interest rate in stipulated judgment that exceeded 12 per cent limitation under section was usurious as a matter of law. 133 CA 773.

Cited. 1 CS 160. Promissory note and certificate of indebtedness executed simultaneously held to be one transaction and the loan usurious. 6 CS 49. Payee not entitled to charge interest upon whole sum, only upon that part which remains payable. 7 CS 424. Intent necessary to constitute usury. 8 CS 244. Does not apply to any loan made by any national bank or any state bank or trust company incorporated in Connecticut. 32 CS 245. Cited. 36 CS 183. Where there are only a few percentage points difference in usury laws of this state and those of another state and both states have a substantial relationship to the transaction, court will apply the usury laws of state which gives validity to the contract. 39 CS 510.

Cited. 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 283.
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 37-9 — Connecticut Code / Title 37 / Chapter 673 / Section 37-9
Sec. 37-9. Loans to which prohibitions do not apply.
Status: in_force

Exception of real property mortgages not unconstitutional. 113 C. 92. Mere inclusion of bonus in mortgage will not destroy its bona fides. Id., 93. Mortgage not within exception where amount actually loaned was under $500. Id., 573. Exception is limited to mortgage itself and does not permit action on the note alone. 120 C. 661; 123 C. 94. Industrial bank is within exception. 125 C. 319. Cited. 126 C. 338. Inclusion in mortgage of bonus with intent to exact more than 12 per cent interest does not of itself render mortgage invalid so as to take it out of the exception. 128 C. 57. Construction of word “interest” applies to chapter generally. 145 C. 342. Attorney's fees paid by borrower cannot be deducted in computing amount of loan. Id., 465. Cited. 172 C. 395; 180 C. 491; 188 C. 477; 193 C. 304; 211 C. 613.

Cited. 21 CA 131; 27 CA 628; 41 CA 754.

Provision excepting mortgage also excepts the note which it secures. 3 CS 22; 8 CS 245. Bona fide defined. Id. Where the note is not usurious as to the corporate maker, it is not usurious against an individual guarantor, though a note at such interest on a loan to an individual would be usurious. 31 CS 154. Cited. 32 CS 245.

Subdiv. (3):

“Mortgage” construed to mean not only mortgage conveyance but also mortgage loan or loan secured by the mortgage; exemption permits deficiency judgment on mortgage loan of over $5,000 with an interest rate in excess of 12 per cent per annum. 244 C. 189.

Cited. 2 CA 119. Exemption does not apply to a deficiency judgment. 6 CA 691. Cited. 44 CA 439. Transaction secured by mortgage on real property in which amount involved exceeded $5,000 was exempted by section. 147 CA 681.
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 37-3a — Connecticut Code / Title 37 / Chapter 673 / Section 37-3a
Sec. 37-3a. Rate recoverable as damages. Rate on debt arising out of hospital services.
Status: in_force

(b) In the case of a debt arising out of services provided at a hospital, prejudgment and postjudgment interest shall be no more than five per cent per year. The awarding of interest in such cases is discretionary.

Cited. 175 C. 138; 178 C. 323; 180 C. 11. Statute does not apply to interest payments ordered by Public Utilities Control Authority. 183 C. 128. Challenge by general contractor to constitutionality of mechanic's lien statutes discussed. 185 C. 583. Where condemnation award contemplated payment of interest at the prevailing statutory rate, court did not err in awarding interest at 6 per cent from date of taking to October 1, 1979, when statute was amended to provide for interest at 8 per cent from that date to date of payment. 187 C. 171. Prejudgment and postjudgment interest discussed with reference to Sec. 52-192a. 192 C. 301. Determination of interest in condemnation proceedings is not subject to provisions of statute. Id., 377. Cited. 196 C. 81. Increase in interest rate only prospective in its operation. 199 C. 683. Cited. 203 C. 324; 207 C. 468; 210 C. 734; 211 C. 648; 213 C. 145; 217 C. 281; 218 C. 628; Id., 646; Id., 681; 222 C. 480; 224 C. 758; Id., 766; 228 C. 206; 234 C. 169; 235 C. 1; 238 C. 293; 239 C. 144; Id., 708; 240 C. 287; 241 C. 749. Interest payable on money wrongfully withheld calculated from date on which court determines the money was due and payable. 247 C. 242. It is within trial court's discretion to award interest on payment withheld in good faith but unlawfully. 300 C. 205. The decision of whether to grant interest under section is primarily an equitable determination within the discretion of the trial court. 304 C. 754. Standard to determine award of interest under this section is no different from the standard under version of Sec. 37-3b in effect before 1997 amendment; interest is authorized when trial court determines, in its discretion, that considerations of fairness and equity warrant such an award; trial court misconstrued standard of section as requiring proof of wrongfulness over and above proof of the underlying legal claim. 310 C. 38. Award of prejudgment or postjudgment interest is decision left to discretion of trial court and requires court to consider whether an award of interest is fair and equitable under the circumstances. 314 C. 675. Only if parties to a loan expressly reject postmaturity interest will trial court have discretion to award interest under section as damages for detention of money; unlike Sec. 37-1, this section applies to interest as damages and allows a trial court to award interest as compensation for the detention of money when the duty to pay arises from an obligation other than a loan of money or property, or when the parties to the loan have decided against interest on the loan. 315 C. 433.

Cited. 1 CA 595. Held not an abuse of discretion for trial court to determine that statutory 8 per cent interest rate which became effective in 1979 should be applied to money due since 1973. 2 CA 322. Cited. 3 CA 111; 6 CA 292; Id., 417; Id., 447; 12 CA 468; 13 CA 330; 16 CA 705; 18 CA 559; 20 CA 566; Id., 676; Id., 680; 21 CA 359; Id., 380; Id., 549; 22 CA 640; 25 CA 529; 27 CA 635; 29 CA 484; 30 CA 136; Id., 729; 31 CA 253; Id., 455. Inapplicable to punitive damages. 32 CA 133. Cited. 34 CA 27; 35 CA 504; 36 CA 322; 39 CA 122; 41 CA 302; 42 CA 712; 43 CA 645; 44 CA 402; Id., 490; 45 CA 543; 46 CA 37; Id., 87. Section interpreted as providing for interest to date of judgment. 56 CA 139. Prejudgment interest owed where defendant wrongfully withheld moneys owed plaintiffs at the time they were payable. 69 CA 366. Postjudgment interest awarded pursuant to section begins to run from date of judgment; where there is a rescript that modifies a judgment, postjudgment interest is to run from date of the original judgment; it should be as if the correct judgment had been issued by the original trial court, with interest running from that date. 73 CA 492. Trial court properly ruled that plaintiff was not entitled to prejudgment interest pursuant to section because plaintiff sought damages necessary to correct damage proximately caused by defendant's negligence. 75 CA 334. Plaintiff was entitled to prejudgment interest based on facts of case. 81 CA 213. Award of statutory prejudgment interest is contingent on the presence of two components: Claim to which the interest attaches must be for a liquidated sum of money wrongfully withheld, and trier must find that equitable considerations warrant payment of interest; prejudgment interest pursuant to section is not warranted, however, in actions for breach of contract where damages sought are similar to those in a personal injury action for negligence, where a party seeks to be made whole for a loss caused by another. Id., 419. Plaintiff's claim for prejudgment interest resulting from tax overassessment was not based on final judgment and thus void ab initio and attempt to cure by withdrawing interest claim did not save action. 86 CA 817. Prejudgment interest is awarded in discretion of trial court to compensate the prevailing party for delay in obtaining money that rightfully belongs to him; detention of the money must be determined to have been wrongful; party seeking prejudgment interest has burden of demonstrating that retention of money is wrongful, and this requires more than demonstrating that opposing party detained money when it should not have done so; focus of the prejudgment interest award allowed by section has been to provide interest, at court's discretion, when there is no dispute over the sum due and the liable party has, without justification, refused to pay. 99 CA 747. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying prejudgment interest. 102 CA 23. When judgment is modified, modified amount should be construed as becoming due and payable from date of original judgment. 109 CA 691. Trial court improperly determined that the parties' stipulation did not limit the issues of interest to the law of another state and that the jury found the facts necessary for an award of interest. 110 CA 668. Trial court abused its discretion in ordering interest on money awarded in a dissolution of marriage action to accrue from date of judgment rather than from date it became payable in accordance with the court's judgment. 111 CA 143. Section establishes a maximum rate of prejudgment interest, and therefore it was within the court's discretion to award prejudgment interest at a rate lower than the maximum rate of 10 per cent. 112 CA 160. Award of prejudgment interest was equitable under the circumstances because party retaining money would receive unfair advantage if it were allowed to retain it while opposing party was deprived of its use and the opportunity to earn interest on it for 6 years; given the particular facts of the case, court did not abuse its discretion in awarding postjudgment interest. 121 CA 31. Section is applicable only when parties have not agreed otherwise. 131 CA 223. Prejudgment interest properly awarded where defendant was found to have wrongfully detained a security deposit and another payment of money made by plaintiff. 134 CA 731. Award of prejudgment interest under section was improper because plaintiff's claim that defendant tortiously interfered with his business expectancies by contacting plaintiff's new customers to get them to rehire defendant does not amount to a claim for a liquidated sum of money wrongfully withheld. 143 CA 758. Prejudgment interest was properly awarded in an action seeking damages on the basis of unjust enrichment; the proper inquiry in determining whether interest may be awarded pursuant to section is whether the claim at issue involves a wrongful detention of money after it becomes due and payable. 144 CA 808. Interest properly awarded where award is affirmed on appeal and defendant thereafter delays paying the award. 148 CA 441. Postjudgment interest did not begin to accrue on the date of the arbitrator's original award, rather, on the date the award became payable under the trial court's judgment confirming the disputed award. 154 CA 196. Plaintiff was not entitled to prejudgment interest under section because the damages sought for defamation and tortious interference with a business expectation are similar to damages sought in a personal injury claim in negligence and, therefore, an unliquidated sum not already payable or being wrongly withheld. 155 CA 519. Trial court's denial of prejudgement interest was proper when plaintiff refused defendant's offer of full payment in an attempt to gain a perceived advantage in litigation of its claims. 158 CA 27.

Cited. 33 CS 609; 37 CS 50; 38 CS 610; 41 CS 538; 44 CS 207.
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 37-5 — Connecticut Code / Title 37 / Chapter 673 / Section 37-5
Sec. 37-5. Notes not to be accepted for greater amounts than loaned.
Status: in_force

Unlawful intent as well as acceptance must be proved. 94 C. 148; 101 C. 558; 118 C. 4. Intent to violate statute as a matter of law. 130 C. 552. Cited. 113 C. 571; 117 C. 255; 120 C. 665; 123 C. 95; 126 C. 338. Transactions between plaintiff and defendant were sales of notes and contracts and not usurious even though interest exceeded 12 per cent. 139 C. 424. Cited. 145 C. 465. Unless the difference between the actual amount of the loan and the face amount of the note are explained to show that interest does not exceed 12 per cent, the loan is per se usurious and in violation of Sec. 37-4. 151 C. 21. Where lender was a 78-year-old woman and borrower, an astute businessman, persuaded lender not to seek legal counsel and to accept his note in an usurious amount, held no intent to evade provisions of Sec. 37-4. 153 C. 400. Cited. 172 C. 395; 188 C. 477; 211 C. 613.

Cited. 6 CA 691; 21 CA 131.

Cited. 1 CS 160. Does not apply to any loan made by any national bank or any state bank or trust company incorporated in Connecticut. 32 CS 245.
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 37-3b — Connecticut Code / Title 37 / Chapter 673 / Section 37-3b
Sec. 37-3b. Rate of interest recoverable in negligence actions.
Status: in_force

(b) If any plaintiff in such action files a postverdict or postjudgment motion or an appeal, the recovery of interest by such plaintiff shall be tolled and interest shall not be added to the judgment for the period that such postverdict or postjudgment motion or appeal is pending before the court. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply if the reason for the filing of a postverdict or postjudgment motion or appeal by the plaintiff is to reply to or answer a motion or appeal filed by a defendant.

Standard to determine award of interest under Sec. 37-3a is no different from the standard under version of this section in effect before 1997 amendment; interest is authorized when trial court determines, in its discretion, that considerations of fairness and equity warrant such an award; trial court misconstrued standard of Sec. 37-3a as requiring proof of wrongfulness over and above proof of the underlying legal claim, and because trial court did not exercise the discretion contemplated by said section, its decision to deny postjudgment interest under this section was improper. 310 C. 38. 2005 revision authorizes award of postjudgment interest at an annual rate of up to 10 per cent and does not restrict discretion of the trial court to choose any rate within that range or limit the trial court to a consideration of specific factors not enumerated in section; the legal duty to pay postjudgment interest arises when the trial court, in the exercise of its discretion, awards such postjudgment interest, and not beforehand, and the interest on the award of such postjudgment interest does not lawfully begin to accrue until such date. 316 C. 790.

Cited. 15 CA 381; 31 CA 455; 45 CA 543.
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 37-8 — Connecticut Code / Title 37 / Chapter 673 / Section 37-8
Sec. 37-8. Actions not to be brought on prohibited loans.
Status: in_force

Cited. 111 C. 87; 120 C. 665. Acceptance of note appearing to be usurious on its face is not sufficient to invoke ban of this section; intent to evade Sec. 37-4 must also be proved. 118 C. 4. Voluntary taking or reservation of more than legal interest is per se usurious; specific intent to violate Sec. 37-4 is not essential. 123 C. 94; 130 C. 552. Where no evidence is offered to explain difference between amount of note and actual loan, court may justifiably find note usurious. 126 C. 339. Statute makes no distinction between rights of an accommodation party who has participated in the usurious transaction and one who has not. 138 C. 636. Cited. 139 C. 425. Where note which would be usurious in Connecticut was executed in New York and payable there, action could be brought thereon in Connecticut, since controlling statute re usury was that of New York. 149 C. 9. Same result where note was executed in Connecticut for convenience of defendant cosigner but delivery was in Massachusetts. Id., 159. Where lender was a 78-year-old woman and borrower, an astute businessman, persuaded her not to seek legal counsel and to accept his note in an usurious amount, action on note allowed. 153 C. 400, 406. Cited. 193 C. 304; 211 C. 613.

Cited. 3 CA 306. Provisions of this statute and Sec. 37-4 bar a deficiency judgment in this case. 6 CA 691. Cited. 21 CA 131; 44 CA 439; Id., 471.

A conditional bill of sale given to avoid the usury statute is void. 1 CS 160. A first mortgage given to secure the performance of an illegal and unenforceable loan is equally ineffective. 8 CS 245. Cited. 33 CS 554.
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 37-7 — Connecticut Code / Title 37 / Chapter 673 / Section 37-7
Sec. 37-7. Penalty.
Status: in_force

Cited. 126 C. 338; 149 C. 12.

Cited. 6 CA 691; 44 CA 439; Id., 471.

Cited. 8 CS 245.

Cited. 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 283.