Court: Connecticut Appellate Court; October 16, 1969; Connecticut; State Appellate Court
An action on common counts commenced on July 25, 1969, involved the attachment of the defendant's real estate, with instructions for the officer to leave a copy of the writ and complaint with several banking corporations. The writ was returnable on the first Tuesday of August 1969, and the defendant filed a general appearance on August 5, 1969. Subsequently, on August 13, the defendant submitted a motion to discharge the attachment, arguing that the officer's return lacked notice regarding the garnishment of the defendant's bank accounts. It was established that the officer had indeed garnished accounts at The Colonial Bank and The Home National Bank.
The court considered the motion as a motion to quash, a standard method for dissolving attachments due to procedural defects. A motion to quash aims to provide swift relief to defendants experiencing abuse of court process. Generally, notice of garnishment is not required if the defendant has appeared in the principal action. However, statutory provisions dictate that officers serving attachment process must inquire about the amount owed by the garnishee and endorse this information on the process as part of their return.
Failure to serve the defendant with notice of garnishment invalidates the process, even if the defendant has made a general appearance. The court emphasized that the officer’s return must detail the service performed, allowing the court to verify compliance with legal requirements. The court underscored the necessity of specific returns for service on corporations to ensure proper legal procedure.
A precise statement regarding service on an individual garnishee is more clearly defined than service on a corporation, which can lead to misinterpretations by the officer involved. Consequently, the motion to quash the garnishment is granted, resulting in the dissolution of the garnishment of the defendant's bank accounts. The plaintiff's reliance on two Connecticut cases, Veeder Mfg. Co. v. Marshall-Sanders Co. and Jepsen v. Toni Co., is noted, with Jepsen indicating that service on the named defendant is immaterial for quashing the order. However, while notice to the defendant is crucial before any judgment on the garnished debt, service is not necessary for the garnishment's validity, particularly in cases involving nonresident defendants. A clear distinction exists between garnishments against resident and nonresident defendants. It is emphasized that no court can release property from an attachment lien without statutory authorization, and failure by the officer to adhere to statutory requirements invalidates the attachment.
