Prejudgment Remedy (PJR) Attachments in Connecticut: A Strategic Asset Protection Tool for Creditors

Overview of Connecticut Prejudgment Remedy Attachment Procedure

In Connecticut, a prejudgment remedy (PJR) allows a creditor to attach or encumber a debtor’s assets—including bank accounts, real estate, business property, and personal assets—at the outset of litigation, before a final judgment is entered. This statutory mechanism is intended to preserve the value of a creditor’s claim during the pendency of a lawsuit by preventing the debtor from transferring, concealing, or dissipating assets. Without such relief, even a favorable judgment may ultimately be uncollectible if the debtor’s assets are no longer available. For example, a commercial lender pursuing a borrower for default may seek a PJR to attach the borrower’s operating accounts or business equipment prior to trial, thereby preserving a viable source of recovery if judgment is entered in the lender’s favor.

This article outlines the procedures, legal standards, and strategic advantages of obtaining prejudgment remedies in Connecticut, offering creditors practical guidance to protect their interests and maximize recovery during litigation.

Key Benefits of Prejudgment Remedy Attachments

Obtaining a prejudgment remedy attachment offers substantial strategic advantages for creditors, including:

• Preserves Debtor Assets
  Prevents the dissipation, concealment, or transfer of assets during litigation, protecting the creditor’s ability to enforce a future judgment.
• Establishes Creditor Priority and Bankruptcy Position
  Secures the creditor’s interest ahead of later creditors and may elevate the creditor to secured status if the debtor files for bankruptcy.
• Improves Settlement Leverage
  Creates immediate financial pressure on the debtor, often prompting early resolution and reducing the time and cost of prolonged litigation.
• Accelerates Case Progress
  Compels the debtor to respond promptly and engage with the litigation, minimizing unnecessary delay and promoting judicial efficiency.
• Strengthens Legal Position
  Facilitates early judicial review of the claim, tests legal theories, and narrows issues—helping to clarify the merits of the case before trial.
• Enhances Transparency and Recovery Potential
  Forces the debtor to disclose assets, increasing the likelihood of identifying attachable property and maximizing recovery for the creditor.

Legal Standard for Prejudgment Remedies

At the core of all PJR proceedings is the requirement that the creditor demonstrate “probable cause” to believe that a judgment will be rendered in its favor. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-278d(a)(1). Probable cause is defined as a bona fide belief in the existence of facts essential to the legal claim—facts that would lead a person of ordinary caution, prudence, and judgment to reasonably entertain the action under the circumstances. J.K. Scanlan Co. v. Constr. Group, Inc., 80 Conn. App. 345 (2003).

Notably, the probable cause standard is less rigorous than the burden of proof at trial. The plaintiff is not required to prove the claim by a preponderance of the evidence or establish ultimate success. Instead, the plaintiff must present sufficient facts to support a reasonable belief in the validity of the claim and justify the requested attachment. Konover Dev. Corp. v. Waterbury Omega, LLC, 214 Conn. App. 648 (2022).

Statutory Framework for Prejudgment Remedies

Connecticut law provides several procedural avenues for creditors to obtain a prejudgment remedy, depending on the urgency of the circumstances and whether prior notice to the debtor is appropriate. These remedies are governed by Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 52-278d, 52-278e, and 52-278f, each of which establishes distinct procedural requirements. Collectively, these statutes are designed to balance the creditor’s interest in securing assets with the debtor’s constitutional right to due process.

Prejudgment Remedy with Notice and Hearing – Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-278d

Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-278d, a creditor may pursue a prejudgment remedy by filing an application with the court, serving notice on the debtor, and participating in a court hearing. At the hearing, the creditor must demonstrate probable cause to sustain the validity of their claim. Both parties are entitled to present evidence and legal argument, after which the court will determine whether to grant or deny the requested remedy based on the applicable legal standard.

Procedure

A creditor seeking a prejudgment remedy with notice and hearing under § 52-278d must follow these steps:

1. File Application with the Court
   The plaintiff files an application for a prejudgment remedy, accompanied by an affidavit establishing probable cause that a judgment will be rendered in the plaintiff’s favor in an amount equal to or greater than the remedy sought, accounting for known defenses, counterclaims, or set-offs. The affidavit should include supporting documentation such as contracts, invoices, promissory notes, or other evidence of the debt.
2. Serve Notice on the Debtor
   Upon receipt of the application, the court issues an order setting a hearing date. The plaintiff must then serve the defendant with both the application and the hearing notice in accordance with applicable service rules.
3. Conduct Hearing on Probable Cause
   At the scheduled hearing, both parties may present evidence and legal argument. The defendant has the opportunity to contest the claim by raising defenses, presenting evidence, or asserting counterclaims.
4. Court Ruling
   Following the hearing, the court determines whether the plaintiff has demonstrated probable cause to sustain the validity of the claim. If the standard is met, the court may grant the requested prejudgment remedy, such as attachment of bank accounts, real estate, or other specified assets.

Example Scenario

A commercial lender files a lawsuit against a business borrower for defaulting on a loan. Along with the complaint, the lender submits an application for a prejudgment remedy, supported by the loan agreement, documentation of the payment default, and an affidavit establishing that a significant balance remains unpaid. The court schedules a hearing and provides the borrower an opportunity to respond. At the hearing, the borrower cites financial hardship but does not dispute the validity or amount of the debt. Based on the evidence presented, the court finds probable cause and grants the lender’s request for a prejudgment attachment on the borrower’s business equipment, thereby preserving the lender’s ability to recover before a final judgment is entered.

Key Benefits

• Secures Creditor’s Position – Preserves the debtor’s assets during litigation, increasing the likelihood of successful post-judgment recovery.
• Provides Judicial Validation – A court finding of probable cause reinforces the strength of the creditor’s claim and may discourage further dispute or delay.
• Enhances Settlement Leverage – Creates immediate pressure on the debtor to resolve the matter early, reducing the risk of asset restraint and ongoing litigation costs.

Prejudgment Remedy Without Notice and Hearing – Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-278e

When there is a significant risk that providing advance notice to the debtor would lead to the concealment, dissipation, or fraudulent transfer of assets, a creditor may pursue an ex parte prejudgment remedy under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-278e. In such cases, the court may grant the requested relief without notifying the debtor, provided the creditor submits an affidavit and supporting documentation establishing probable cause for the underlying claim and demonstrating the necessity of immediate, ex parte action. Although the remedy is initially issued without a hearing, the debtor has the right to request a post-attachment hearing to contest or seek dissolution of the attachment.

Procedure

A creditor seeking a prejudgment remedy without notice and hearing under § 52-278e must follow these steps:

1. File an Ex Parte Application with the Court
   The plaintiff files an application for a prejudgment remedy, supported by an affidavit that:
   (i) establishes probable cause that judgment will be rendered in the plaintiff’s favor in an amount equal to or greater than the remedy sought, accounting for any known defenses, counterclaims, or set-offs; and
   (ii) demonstrates that providing advance notice to the defendant would likely prejudice the plaintiff’s ability to recover—for example, by allowing time for the concealment, transfer, or dissipation of assets.
2. Court Review Without Hearing
   The court reviews the application and supporting materials ex parte. If satisfied that the statutory requirements are met, the court may issue the prejudgment remedy without conducting a hearing.
3. Post-Attachment Hearing (Upon Debtor’s Request)
   Once the defendant is served with notice of the attachment, they may request a hearing to contest the remedy. Upon request, the court must hold a hearing to determine whether the attachment should be modified or dissolved.

Example Scenario

A landlord brings legal action against a tenant for significant unpaid rent and discovers that the tenant is preparing to move out of state. Concerned that advance notice may lead the tenant to liquidate assets or close bank accounts, the landlord files an ex parte application for a prejudgment remedy under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-278e. The application is supported by an affidavit detailing the unpaid rent and outlining the risk of asset dissipation. Finding probable cause, the court grants the requested remedy without prior notice to the tenant, authorizing an attachment on the tenant’s bank account to secure funds for the outstanding rent obligation.

Key Benefits

• Enables Prompt Action – Allows creditors to act swiftly in cases involving fraud, impending insolvency, or the risk of asset concealment
• Prevents Asset Dissipation – Blocks debtors from transferring, hiding, or depleting assets before the creditor can obtain relief.
• Offers Expedited Relief – Delivers a fast and effective tool for securing assets when timing is critical to enforcement.

Prejudgment Remedy Without Application, Notice, or Hearing – Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-278f

Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-278f, a creditor may obtain a prejudgment remedy without filing an application, providing notice to the debtor, or participating in a court hearing—provided the debtor has contractually waived the right to notice and a hearing in connection with a commercial transaction. These prejudgment remedy waivers are commonly found in commercial loan agreements, promissory notes, security agreements, and other business contracts, where the debtor expressly acknowledges that the creditor may pursue prejudgment attachment without further court involvement. This statutory provision enables creditors to act immediately to secure assets, consistent with the terms of the parties’ agreement.

Procedure

A creditor seeking a prejudgment remedy based on a commercial waiver under § 52-278f must follow these steps:

1. Confirm Valid Commercial Waiver
   Ensure that the underlying transaction is commercial in nature (not consumer) and that the debtor has executed a valid waiver of the right to notice and a hearing.
2. Prepare Required Prejudgment Remedy Documents
   • Complaint Including Waiver – The plaintiff’s complaint must outline the claims, legal basis for relief, and include a copy of the signed commercial prejudgment remedy waiver.
   • Affidavit of Probable Cause – The plaintiff must submit an affidavit establishing probable cause that judgment in the amount of the remedy sought will be rendered in their favor, accounting for any known defenses, counterclaims, or set-offs.
   • Writ, Summons, and Direction for Attachment – The plaintiff must prepare a writ of attachment, summons, and direction instructing a Connecticut state marshal to attach the debtor’s assets and serve the necessary legal documents.
3. Attorney Issuance of Writ
   The plaintiff’s attorney may issue the writ of attachment without prior court approval. The attorney directs a state marshal to attach the identified assets and serve the defendant with the complaint and prejudgment remedy documents.
4. Service and Notice to the Defendant
   The defendant must be served with the complaint, supporting documents, and a notice complying with § 52-278e, which advises the defendant of the right to request a post-attachment hearing.
5. Defendant’s Right to Post-Attachment Hearing
   If the defendant requests a hearing, the court must schedule and conduct a proceeding to determine whether the prejudgment remedy should be modified or dissolved.

Example Scenario

A business vendor supplies goods to a retailer under a commercial agreement that includes an express waiver of the retailer’s right to notice and a hearing in the event of non-payment. After the retailer fails to pay a substantial invoice, the vendor relies on the waiver to obtain a prejudgment remedy without filing a formal application or providing advance notice. The vendor’s attorney issues a writ directing a Connecticut state marshal to attach the retailer’s inventory and serve the necessary documents, securing assets at the outset of litigation and preserving the vendor’s ability to recover the debt.

Key Benefits

• Immediate Asset Security – Allows creditors to promptly secure assets in commercial matters where the debtor has contractually waived notice and hearing rights.
• Reduces Time and Legal Costs – Avoids the need for court application or hearing, streamlining the prejudgment remedy process and reducing associated legal expenses.
• Leverages Contractual Protections – Utilizes pre-negotiated waiver provisions to enhance recovery efforts and strengthen the creditor’s position from the outset of litigation.

 Conclusion

Connecticut’s prejudgment remedy statutes offer creditors flexible and effective means to protect their financial interests before final judgment. Whether obtained through a noticed hearing, an ex parte application, or pursuant to a contractual waiver, prejudgment remedies serve as a powerful tool to secure assets, prevent dissipation, and preserve the enforceability of a future judgment.

Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C. has extensive experience representing creditors in recovery litigation matters, offering effective and strategic legal counsel. For more information or to schedule a consultation, please contact Attorney Lucas Rocklin at (203) 781-2835 or via email at lrocklin@npmlaw.com.

Lucas B. Rocklin

Lucas B. Rocklin is a creditor rights attorney. He has extensive experience in representing financial institutions and creditors in workout and litigation matters (commercial and consumer) including collections, foreclosures, bankruptcy and landlord-tenant litigation. Attorney Rocklin also practices labor law including collective bargaining agreement negotiations and arbitrations.

Joseph R. Dunaj

Joseph R. Dunaj is a member of the firm’s commercial litigation, and bankruptcy and creditor rights groups. His extensive experience includes representation of financial institutions and creditors in various collection cases and foreclosure cases, inclusive of settlement negotiations, title matters, and both appellate and bankruptcy work.

John T. Szalan II

John T. Szalan is a member of the firm’s commercial litigation and creditor rights groups. His experience includes representation of financial institutions, creditors, and institutional real estate clients, inclusive of settlement negotiations, title issues, and real estate transactions.