Bill Rothfarb v. Programit, Inc. et al. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTIONS TO REARGUE # s122.00 and 123.00

Motions to Reargue are Denied for the following reasons:

1. The court found that the release of the judgment lien appeared to reserve some lien right to secure the nonmonetary portion of the judgment.   Therefore, the lien release was not full and unconditional because it implies that there is some undisclosed residual component of the judgment that may not be released.   In fact, the only thing that the lien did was to secure a monetary sum.   That sum having been paid, the lien must be released unconditionally.

2. The fact that Caro no longer has the stock or that the corporations which issued the stock are defunct only affects the collectibility of that portion of the judgment, not its validity.   It is not this court's function to determine whether for instance, Caro wrongfully divested himself of the stock or otherwise disposed of it in an improper manner.   There is no basis in law for an order “extinguishing” part of the judgment.

3. As to attorneys fees, Section 52–380g allows the court to award damages pursuant to Section 49–51.   The defendant has claimed none except attorneys fees.   Section 49–51 permits attorneys fees only if the court is of the opinion that the certificate of lien was filed “without just cause.”  Torrance Family Ltd. Partnership v. Laser Contracting LLC, 94 Conn.App. 526, 536–537 (2006).   Clearly, the judgment lien was filed with just cause because it secured a valid monetary judgment.   The continuation of the lien during the controversy was not done without just cause because the lienor had a bona fide belief he had properly released the lien.   Therefore, the application for attorneys fees is denied.

THE COURT

A. WILLIAM MOTTOLESE

Mottolese, A. William, J.T.R.