In re Cole
Citations
- 347 Conn. 284
Syllabus
Pursuant to statute (§ 55-3), ''[n]o provision of the general statutes, not previously contained in the statutes of the state, which imposes any new obligation on any person or corporation, shall be construed to have a retrospective effect.'' In November, 2021, the debtor, C, filed a bankruptcy petition under chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut, claiming, inter alia, a statutory (§ 52-352b (21)) homestead exemption in the amount of $250,000. The public act (P.A. 93-301) that created the homestead exemption allowed a debtor to protect up to $75,000 of the value of his or her primary residence from attachment in postjudgment or bankruptcy proceedings. Public Act 93-301, however, included a carve-out whereby the homestead exemption could not be claimed for debts accrued prior to the act's effective date of October 1, 1993. The legislature subsequently passed an amendment (P.A. 21-161), effective October 1, 2021, that repealed the previous version of § 52-352b and replaced it with a new version, which increased the homestead exemption from $75,000 to $250,000 but did not include any carve-out for preexisting debts. The trustee of the bankruptcy estate objected to C's claimed homestead exemption of $250,000, arguing that, although her bankruptcy proceeding was com- menced after October 1, 2021, all of her debts were incurred prior to that date. Relying on the principle embodied in § 55-3, the parties focused their arguments before the Bankruptcy Court on the issue of whether P.A. 21-161 enacted a procedural amendment, which presumptively applies retroactively, or a substantive amendment, which presumptively applies only prospectively. The Bankruptcy Court overruled the trustee's objection, concluding that the amendment was intended to apply retroac- tively to preexisting debts and, accordingly, that C was entitled to the $250,000 homestead exemption. The trustee appealed from the decision of
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Alexander
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCites
31 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Miller v. AlabamaSupreme Court· 2012-06-25· cited 6,816×
- Landgraf v. USI Film ProductsSupreme Court· 1994-04-26· cited 4,825×
- Bowen v. Georgetown University HospitalSupreme Court· 1988-12-12· cited 2,039×
- Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States Ex Rel. SchumerSupreme Court· 1997-06-16· cited 600×
- Martin v. HadixSupreme Court· 1999-06-21· cited 345×
- Vartelas v. HolderSupreme Court· 2012-03-28· cited 228×
- State v. FaradaySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2004-03-16· cited 119×
- Schieffelin & Co. v. Department of Liquor ControlSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1984-08-07· cited 66×
- Bruin Portfolio, LLC v. Leicht (In Re Leicht)First Circuit· 1998-07-07· cited 49×
- First National Bank of Mobile v. Alton A. NorrisFirst Circuit· 1983-03-28· cited 43×
- Coley v. Camden Associates, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1997-11-25· cited 40×
- CFCU Community Credit Union v. HaywardSecond Circuit· 2009-01-09· cited 39×
- City of Hartford v. Town of SuffieldSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1950-12-12· cited 32×
- State v. BischoffSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2021-01-15· cited 32×
- Southwick at Milford Condominium Ass'n v. 523 Wheelers Farm Road, Milford, LLCSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-12-22· cited 29×
- Nagle v. WoodSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1979-06-26· cited 29×
- Semple v. CasianoSupreme Court· 2016-03-07· cited 23×
- Asylum Hill Problem Solving Revitalization Ass'n v. KingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2006-02-21· cited 22×
- Gernat v. BelfordD. Connecticut· 1996-03-04· cited 19×
- In Re DudaD. Connecticut· 1995-05-31· cited 18×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.