Cadle Company v. Fletcher
OPINION, affirming the judgment of the district court. per curiam by JAC. RSP, P. Gardephe, FILED. [14-3404]
Case 14-3404, Document 171, 02/06/2017, 1962254, Page1 of 3
Cadle Co. v. Fletcher
United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit
AUGUST TERM 2015
THE CADLE COMPANY,
MARGUERITE FLETCHER AND TERRY B. FLETCHER,
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut
ARGUED: SEPTEMBER 25, 2015
DECIDED: FEBRUARY 6, 2017
Before: CABRANES and POOLER, Circuit Judges, and GARDEPHE,
Judge Paul G. Gardephe, of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, sitting by designation.
Case 14-3404, Document 171, 02/06/2017, 1962254, Page2 of 3
On appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut (Stefan R. Underhill, Judge) granting
summary judgment to Plaintiff‐Appellee on its claim of fraudulent
transfer of assets and denying a motion by Defendants‐Appellants
for partial summary judgment. Relying on an opinion by the
Connecticut Supreme Court holding post‐garnishment residual
wages are not exempt from further execution by a judgment
creditor, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.
Paul N. Gilmore, Updike, Kelly & Spellacy,
P.C., Hartford, CT, for Plaintiff‐Appellee.
John W. Larson (Nicholas J. Harding, on
the brief), Reid & Riege, P.C., Hartford, CT,
Defendants‐Appellants Marguerite Fletcher and Terry B.
Fletcher appeal the August 13, 2014 judgment of the District Court
granting summary judgment to Plaintiff‐Appellee on its claim of
fraudulent transfer of assets and denying a motion by Defendants‐
Appellants for partial summary judgment. The primary question on
appeal is whether a judgment debtor’s residual wages after
garnishment are exempt from further execution under Conn. Gen.
Case 14-3404, Document 171, 02/06/2017, 1962254, Page3 of 3
Stat. §§ 52‐361a and 52‐367b, and thus should not be considered
“assets” under the Connecticut Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act,
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52‐552a et seq.1
On October 14, 2015, we entered an order certifying the
question of whether Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 52‐361a and 52‐367b exempt
a judgment debtor’s post‐garnishment residual wages from further
execution to the Connecticut Supreme Court. See Cadle Co. v. Fletcher,
804 F.3d 198 (2d Cir. 2015) (per curiam).2 The Connecticut Supreme
Court has answered that question in the negative. See Cadle Co. v.
Fletcher, 324 Conn. 228, 244‐45 (Dec. 23, 2016).
We have considered all of the Defendants’ remaining
arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit.
Accordingly, for substantially the reasons set forth by the
Connecticut Supreme Court, we AFFIRM the judgment of the
The underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and issues on appeal are set
forth in our opinion of October 14, 2015.
In light of the paucity of state precedent, we held that it was more appropriate for
the Connecticut Supreme Court to interpret the relevant state statutes in light of
Connecticut’s overall statutory scheme. See Cruz v. TD Bank, N.A., 711 F.3d 261, 267‐
68 (2d Cir. 2013). Our decision to certify this question is fully explained in our
previous opinion. See Cadle Co., 804 F.3d at 199‐202.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?