The dispute centers on a 2013 retail installment contract for the purchase of a 2011 Nissan Rogue. After Connex Credit Union repossessed and sold the vehicle in 2017 following the borrowers’ default, Lynanne Madgic and Brian P. Madgic filed a counterclaim alleging the credit union failed to provide proper notice before and after the repossession.
The defendants sought statutory damages under General Statutes § 42a-9-625 of the UCC and § 36a-785(i) of RISFA. The trial court granted summary judgment for the credit union, relying on Mutual Security Credit Union v. Hardy and Jacobs v. Healey Ford-Subaru, Inc., to conclude that both statutes were penal and subject to the one-year limitation period in General Statutes § 52-585.
The Connecticut Supreme Court rejected this characterization, ruling that the statutes are remedial rather than penal because they provide private rights of action to aggrieved debtors and aim to compensate them for losses. Consequently, the court held that § 52-585 does not apply to these counterclaims.
Instead, the court determined that the claims sound in tort because they arise from statutory duties imposed by law rather than contractual obligations. The court therefore applied the three-year limitation period in General Statutes § 52-577 to both the Article 9 and RISFA counterclaims.
The court reversed the trial court’s judgment on the summary judgment motion and remanded the case for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court must determine whether the counterclaims are timely under the three-year period. The opinion specifically notes that timeliness may be affected by Executive Orders No. 7G (March 19, 2020) and No. 10A (February 8, 2021), issued by Governor Ned Lamont during the COVID-19 pandemic, which tolled limitation periods between March 2020 and early 2021.
The trial court must also reconsider the defendants’ motion for class certification. The opinion acknowledges that the plaintiff argues some putative class members are untimely because the motion was not filed until November 30, 2023, while defendants argue that the statute of limitations was tolled under American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah. The court left these specific class certification timeliness issues to the trial court on remand.