Hello and thank you for your question.
Bearing in mind that answers and comments provided on Google Answers
are general information, and are not intended to substitute for
informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal,
investment, accounting, or other professional advice, my conclusion is
that no special conditions apply to attaching an attorney's trustee
account.
The applicable statutues are contained in CGS chapters 903a and 905.
The easiest way to find them is by searching for the word
garnishee
at http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/Statutes.asp
In Connecticut, garnishment is instituted without judicial order.
Ibid.; 1 E. Stephenson, Connecticut Civil Procedure 151 (2d ed. 1970).
24 The levy of garnishment - usually effected by a deputy sheriff -
does not confer jurisdiction on state courts and may, in fact, [405
U.S. 538, 554] occur prior to commencement of an alleged creditor's
suit. Young v. Margiotta, 136 Conn. 429, 433, 71 A. 2d 924, 926.
Despite the state court's control over the plaintiff's docketed case,
garnishment is "distinct from and independent of that action." Potter
v. Appleby, 136. Conn. 641, 643, 73 A. 2d 819, 820. The garnished
property is secured, not under authority of the court, but merely in
the hands of the garnishee. Conn. Gen. Stat. Rev. 52-329. Prejudgment
garnishment is thus levied and maintained without the participation of
the state courts.
LYNCH v. HOUSEHOLD FINANCE CORP., 405 U.S. 538 (1972)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=405&invol=538
Connecticut law permits the assertion of quasi-in-rem jurisdiction by
process of garnishment, which is also known in Connecticut as foreign
attachment. See Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 52-329 (West Supp. 1981).
Under Connecticut's procedure the creditor institutes an action
against its debtor by garnishing the debtor's funds in the hands of a
third party. If the debtor challenges the garnishment, the state court
in the creditor-debtor action tests the garnishment only to the extent
of determining whether there is probable cause to sustain the validity
of the creditor's claim. William M. Raveis & Associates v. Kimball,
186 Conn. 329, 441 A.2d 200, 203 (1982); Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §
52-278d(a) (West Supp. 1981). If probable cause exists, the court then
adjudicates the creditor's claim against the debtor and, if the
creditor prevails, enters judgment for the creditor. The creditor then
makes demand upon the garnishee for payment of the funds subject to
the garnishment. If the garnishee refuses payment, the creditor may
then proceed by a scire facias action, see Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §
52-381 (West 1960), or a declaratory judgment action, see id. § 235a,
to secure an adjudication that the garnishee holds assets of the
debtor that are subject to garnishment. See Clime v. Gregor, 145 Conn.
74, 138 A.2d 794 (1958). If the creditor secures judgment in the scire
facias or declaratory judgment action, it is then entitled to have
execution upon the garnishee, up to the amount of the garnished funds,
to satisfy the judgment obtained against the debtor. See generally 1
E. Stephenson, Connecticut Civil Procedure §§ 56-74 (2d ed. 1970).
DICK WARNER CARGO HANDLING CORP., Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
AETNA BUSINESS CREDIT, INC., Defendant-Appellee
700 F.2d 858; 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 30540 (2d Cir.)
http://www.brownwelsh.com/DBrown_archive/DBBest.html
Garnishment is a broad enough tool in Connecticut that it took an
attorney general opinion to clarify that a state agency can't be
attached.
"The remedy of attaching and securing a defendant's property to
satisfy a judgment which the plaintiff may recover is unknown to the
common law and is founded on and regulated by our statutory law."
Essex Group, Inc. v. Ducci Electric Co., 181 Conn. 524, 525, 436 A.2d
16 (1980). The general statutory scheme governing attachment and
garnishment is found in chapters 903a through 906 of the Connecticut
General Statutes.
1991 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
http://www.cslib.org/attygenl/opinions/1991/1991-025.htm
I actually found a case in point, but it's not a Connecticut case.
"The sum of $100,000.00 presently held by the law firm of Fox, Wooten
& Hart is the property of the judgment debtors, and was the property
of or owed to the judgment debtors and subject to the garnishment
herein at the time it was paid over to said law firm by the original
garnishee, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company." The [trial] court further
ruled "that the claim of Holston International, Incorporated to said
sum is not supported by the evidence and is hereby accordingly
denied."
Holston International Inc. v. Coulthard, 401 S.E.2d 865, 241 Va. 219
(Va. 03/01/1991)
Virginia Supreme Court (affirming the trial court)
http://www.fraudulenttransfers.com/1991_VA_40372.htm
This gives me the confidence to conclude that the attorney's trust
account is subject to attachment.
Search terms used:
connecticut attorney garnishee
connecticut escrow site:www.assetprotectionbook.com
Again, thanks for letting us help.
Sincerely,
Google Answers Researcher
Richard-ga |
