Olin Corp. v. Castells

Decision Date04 March 1980
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesOLIN CORPORATION v. Raul CASTELLS et al.

Hubert J. Santos, Hartford, with whom was A. Susan Peck, Hartford, for appellant (defendant Purita G. de Castells).

Robert W. Allen, Hartford, with whom were Robert K. Ciulla, New Haven, and, on the brief, Susan J. Bryson, New Haven, for appellee (plaintiff).

Before LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, PETERS, HEALEY and PARSKEY, JJ.

BOGDANSKI, Associate Justice.

The plaintiff Olin Corporation instituted an action against the defendant Raul Castells wherein it alleged that the defendant had fraudulently induced Olin to pay $70,000 into a Swiss bank account which sum the defendant converted to his own use in breach of his employment agreement with Olin. Pursuant to § 52-278e of the General Statutes, 1 Olin applied for a prejudgment remedy alleging that there was a reasonable likelihood that the defendant had fraudulently disposed of his property with the intent to defraud his creditor. On the basis of affidavits containing hearsay statements and a copy of a quitclaim deed wherein Raul Castells conveyed his interest in his home in Woodbridge to his wife Purita de Castells, the court granted Olin's application to attach the corporate shares of Raul Castells in Olin Corporation and one of its subsidiaries. Raul Castells subsequently moved to dissolve that order of attachment. He did not, however, challenge the court's finding of probable cause.

Olin thereafter amended its complaint to bring an action against Purita G. de Castells to set aside a fraudulent conveyance and for money damages, alleging that Raul Castells transferred his interest in the Woodbridge property to his wife Purita with the intent to avoid the payment of his debts to his creditors and that, at the time of the conveyance, Purita knew that Olin had demanded repayment of the $70,000 from Raul. Olin also filed a motion for a supplemental prejudgment remedy seeking an order to attach Purita de Castells' interest in the Woodbridge property. In support of this motion, Olin filed the same affidavits containing hearsay statements and copy of the quitclaim deed which it had submitted in support of the prejudgment attachment of Raul Castells' interest in the corporate shares. It also filed an affidavit stating that the quitclaim deed was executed subsequent to the demand by Olin for the repayment of the $70,000 and the transcript of a deposition in which Raul Castells refused to answer questions relative to the conveyance of his interest in the Woodbridge property.

At the hearing on the motion, the defendant Purita de Castells offered no evidence, documentary or otherwise, to contradict the allegations in the complaint or the statements in supporting documents. Instead, her counsel objected to the granting of the motion on the basis of affidavits containing hearsay statements and in the absence of live testimony. From the order granting the supplemental prejudgment remedy, the defendant Purita has appealed claiming that the court erred (1) in finding probable cause on the basis of hearsay statements without requiring the plaintiff to present live testimony, (2) in relying on a prior unchallenged finding, and (3) in drawing an adverse inference from Raul Castells' invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination.

We note at the outset that Olin could have proceeded in this case by seeking an order attaching Raul Castells' interest in the Woodbridge property. A grantor has an interest in property fraudulently conveyed which may be reached by attachment. Murphy v. Dantowitz, 142 Conn. 320, 326, 114 A.2d 194 (1955). "A creditor may attach property which has been fraudulently conveyed by his debtor as though no conveyance had been made." 37 C.J.S. Fraudulent Conveyances § 309; 37 Am.Jur.2d, Fraudulent Conveyances § 165. In ordering Raul Castells' interest in the Woodbridge property attached, it would be incumbent upon the court to make a determination as to the probable cause of Olin's claim against the defendant Raul, a claim supported by affidavits containing hearsay statements.

In the posture of the present case, however, it was not necessary for the court to consider the probability of Olin prevailing on the merits against the plaintiff Raul. We therefore need not decide whether the court erred in finding probable cause on the basis of those affidavits containing hearsay statements which relate to the action against Raul or on the prior unchallenged finding of probable cause made in a separate proceeding. Because Olin chose to attach Purita de Castells' interest in the Woodbridge property, it was only necessary for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • Whitaker v. Prince George's County
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 1 September 1986
    ...omitted) (emphasis the author's); see also Baxter, 425 U.S. 308, 318, 96 S.Ct. 1551, 1558, 47 L.Ed.2d 810 (1976); Olin Corp. v. Castells, 180 Conn. 49, 428 A.2d 319 (1980). Cf. Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965) (constitutional error under fifth amendm......
  • Blake v. Blake
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 20 June 1989
    ...to court trials. D'Amico v. Manson, supra; Friedman v. Friedman, 180 Conn. 132, 135, 429 A.2d 823 (1980); Olin Corporation v. Castells, 180 Conn. 49, 53, 428 A.2d 319 (1980). The absence of the defendant as a witness met the second prong of the Secondino test in that he was a witness whom t......
  • City of Bridgeport v. Kasper Group, Inc., 17470.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 6 June 2006
    ... ... to present its evidence and argument." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Tempo Shain Corp. v. Bertek, Inc., 120 F.3d 16, 20 (2d Cir.1997), quoting Hoteles Condado Beach v. Union De ... 8 See Olin Corp. v. Castells, ... Page 532 ... 180 Conn. 49, 53-54, 428 A.2d 319 (1980) (party's ... ...
  • In re Samantha C.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 27 April 2004
    ...where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Olin Corp. v. Castells, 180 Conn. 49, 53, 428 A.2d 319 (1980). The privilege against self-incrimination also carries with it the added benefit that no adverse inference may be drawn ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT