Source: https://thekuhnlawfirm.com/debtors-transfer-wages-wife-prevent-creditor/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 11:10:46+00:00

Document:
An experienced Minneapolis, Minnesota creditor lawyer knows that sometimes a debtor will try to avoid paying on a judgment. In the case below from Connecticut, the debtor tried to avoid paying on a judgment by transferring all his wages (over and above what the creditor could take) to his wife. The court found that because husband’s residual wages would not have been exempt from execution if he had retained possession of them, and therefore, they were subject to execution after husband transferred them to his wife’s account.
Paul N. Gilmore, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Fletcher(Terry) owed the plaintiff more than $3 million.
Transfer Act (CUFTA), General Statutes § 52-552 et seq.
to Terry’s transfer of his residual wages to Marguerite.
[CUFTA] . . . ?’’ (Citation omitted.) Cadle Co. v.
Terry transferred them to Marguerite’s account.
of the statute itself and its relationship to other statutes.
creditor may apply to the court for a wage execution.
to the contrary. See Community Investment Corp. v.
Professional Services, supra, 608; Discover Bank v.
the case. Accordingly, we do not find these cases persuasive.
included in § 52-367b (a) since its enactment in 1981.
Form was simply the result of an oversight.
are exempt from wage garnishments.
are exempt from wage garnishments under § 52-361a.
against personal property do not apply to earnings.
to wages in the hands of a judgment debtor.
tention, the defendants cite to General Tires, Inc. v.
should be held to satisfy executions . . . .’’ Id., 195.
the hands of a judgment debtor from further execution.
while his debt to the judgment creditor remained unsatisfied.
Cf. In re Koeneman, 410 B.R. 820, 827 (Bankr.
with no ability to pay necessary family living expenses.
at least able to pay the rent and put food on the table.
a bank account simply because they derive from wages.
in § 52-367b (c), which does not apply retroactively.
The answer to the certified question is: No.
opinion, is the operative date for all substantive and procedural purposes.
for wages that have been deposited in a bank account.
this court’s statement in Fleet Bank Connecticut, N.A. v. Carillo, 240 Conn.
debt. See id. Similarly, this court’s statement in State v. Lavigne, 307 Conn.
‘‘debts’’ referred to in that statute in any way.
statute when P.A. 81-352 was enacted.
4 See, e.g., Office of Legislative Research, Bill Analysis, Senate Bill No.
disposable weekly earnings or  $348 of weekly wages’’).
encouraged to continue working and steadily repaying his debts.’’).
federal Consumer Credit Protection Act of 1970. See 13 H.R. Proc., Pt.
8, 1969 Sess., p. 3864, remarks of Representative Edward S. Rimer, Jr.
with . . . the [f]ederal Consumer Credit Protection Act’’).

References: § 52
 v.

 v.

 v.

 § 52
 § 52
 v.

 § 52
 v. 
 v.