313 A.2d 82 (Conn.Cir.Ct. 1973), CV 7-713-17485, New Haven Water Co. Emp. Credit Union v. Burroughs

Docket Nº:CV 7-713-17485.
Citation:313 A.2d 82, 6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 709
Opinion Judge:JACOBS, Judge.
Party Name:NEW HAVEN WATER COMPANY EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION v. Michael BURROUGHS et al.
Attorney:London, Michalik, Piskorski & Lynch, New Britain, for plaintiff., Francis X. Dineen, New Haven, for named defendant. London, Michalik, Piskorski & Lynch, New Britain, for plaintiff.
Judge Panel:JACOBS,
Case Date:July 25, 1973
Court:Circuit Court of Connecticut

Page 82

313 A.2d 82 (Conn.Cir.Ct. 1973)

6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 709

NEW HAVEN WATER COMPANY EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION

v.

Michael BURROUGHS et al.

No. CV 7-713-17485.

Circuit Court of Connecticut, Seventh Circuit.

July 25, 1973

London, Michalik, Piskorski & Lynch, New Britain, for plaintiff.

Francis X. Dineen, New Haven, for named defendant.

Page 83

JACOBS, Judge.

The plaintiff brought this action to collect the balance allegedly due on a promissory note executed by the defendants on or about July [6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 710] 9, 1970. The defendant Michael Burroughs demurred to the complaint on the ground that it fails to allege facts showing compliance with General Statutes § 42-98, a provision of the Retail Instalment Sales Financing Act, or § 42a-9-504, a provision of the Uniform Commercial Code.

I

The defendant Burroughs, hereinafter called the defendant, avers that the complaint fails to demonstrate compliance with § 42-98. It must be pointed out, however, that § 42-98 refers expressly to the right of repossession for default by a 'retail buyer' 1 on a 'retail instalment contract' 2 or an 'instalment loan contract.' 3 From the definitions set forth in General Statute § 42-83, it is clear that the defendant is not considered a 'retail buyer' for the purposes of § 42-98. Likewise, it is clear that the promissory note executed by the defendant and cosigned by Benjamin Della Camera, whose 1968 automobile was put up as collateral, is neither a 'retail instalment contract' nor an 'instalment loan contract' within the meaning of § 42-98. Rather, it appears from the record that the defendant obtained[6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 711] a loan from the plaintiff and offered as collateral the automobile owned by Della Camera. The defendant was not purchasing the automobile, and no security interest was taken in any goods for the purchase of which money was loaned. Since, by its own terms, § 42-98 is inapplicable to the situation in question, the defendant's demurrer alleging the plaintiff's failure to plead compliance therewith is insufficient at law.

II

The defendant also demurs on account of the plaintiff's failure to allege compliance with General Statutes § 42a-9-504. Specifically, the defendant contends that the notice requirement of § 42a-9-504(3) is unsatisfied: 'Unless collateral is perishable or threatens to decline speedily in value or is of a type customarily sold on a...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP