Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca2-14-03404/USCOURTS-ca2-14-03404-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cadle Company
Appellee
Marguerite Fletcher
Appellant
Terry B. Fletcher
Appellant

Document Text:

14‐3404‐cv

Cadle Co. v. Fletcher

In the 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Second Circuit    

AUGUST TERM 2015

No. 14‐3404‐cv

THE CADLE COMPANY,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

MARGUERITE FLETCHER AND TERRY B. FLETCHER,

Defendants‐Appellants.

   

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Connecticut

   

ARGUED: SEPTEMBER 25, 2015

DECIDED: FEBRUARY 6, 2017

   

Before: CABRANES and POOLER, Circuit Judges, and GARDEPHE,

District Judge.

*

   

 * Judge Paul G. Gardephe, of the United States District Court for the Southern

District of New York, sitting by designation.

Case 14-3404, Document 171, 02/06/2017, 1962254, Page1 of 3
2

On appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court

for the District of Connecticut (Stefan R. Underhill, Judge) granting

summary judgment to Plaintiff‐Appellee on its claim of fraudulent

transfer of assets and denying a motion by Defendants‐Appellants

for partial summary judgment. Relying on an opinion by the

Connecticut Supreme Court holding post‐garnishment residual

wages are not exempt from further execution by a judgment

creditor, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.

   

Paul N. Gilmore, Updike, Kelly & Spellacy,

P.C., Hartford, CT, for Plaintiff‐Appellee.

John W. Larson (Nicholas J. Harding, on

the brief), Reid & Riege, P.C., Hartford, CT,

for Defendants‐Appellants.

   

PER CURIAM:

Defendants‐Appellants Marguerite Fletcher and Terry B.

Fletcher appeal the August 13, 2014 judgment of the District Court

granting summary judgment to Plaintiff‐Appellee on its claim of

fraudulent transfer of assets and denying a motion by Defendants‐

Appellants for partial summary judgment. The primary question on

appeal is whether a judgment debtor’s residual wages after

garnishment are exempt from further execution under Conn. Gen.

Case 14-3404, Document 171, 02/06/2017, 1962254, Page2 of 3
3

Stat. §§ 52‐361a and 52‐367b, and thus should not be considered

“assets” under the Connecticut Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act,

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52‐552a et seq.

1

On October 14, 2015, we entered an order certifying the

question of whether Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 52‐361a and 52‐367b exempt

a judgment debtor’s post‐garnishment residual wages from further

execution to the Connecticut Supreme Court. See Cadle Co. v. Fletcher,

804 F.3d 198 (2d Cir. 2015) (per curiam).2 The Connecticut Supreme

Court has answered that question in the negative. See Cadle Co. v.

Fletcher, 324 Conn. 228, 244‐45 (Dec. 23, 2016).  

We have considered all of the Defendants’ remaining

arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit.

Accordingly, for substantially the reasons set forth by the

Connecticut Supreme Court, we AFFIRM the judgment of the

District Court.  

 

1 The underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and issues on appeal are set

forth in our opinion of October 14, 2015.  

2 In light of the paucity of state precedent, we held that it was more appropriate for

the Connecticut Supreme Court to interpret the relevant state statutes in light of

Connecticut’s overall statutory scheme. See Cruz v. TD Bank, N.A., 711 F.3d 261, 267‐

68 (2d Cir. 2013). Our decision to certify this question is fully explained in our

previous opinion. See Cadle Co., 804 F.3d at 199‐202.

Case 14-3404, Document 171, 02/06/2017, 1962254, Page3 of 3