ISAAC HERNANDEZ v. APPLE AUTO WHOLESALERS OF WATERBURY, LLC, ET AL.

Citations

• 338 Conn. 803

Syllabus

Pursuant to statute (§ 52-572g (a)), ''[a]ny holder in due course of a promis- sory note, contract or other instrument,'' executed by a buyer in connec- tion with a credit transaction covering consumer goods, ''shall be subject to all of the claims and defenses which the buyer has against the seller 9 Indeed, counsel for both the plaintiff and the defendant informed this court during oral argument that they were unaware of any other case in which postjudgment, offer of compromise interest had been awarded under § 52-192a. 804 OCTOBER, 2021 338 Conn. 803 Hernandez v. Apple Auto Wholesalers of Waterbury, LLC arising out of the transaction . . . limited to the amount of debt then outstanding . . . provided the buyer shall have made a prior written demand on the seller with respect to the transaction.'' The plaintiff, who had purchased a motor vehicle from the defendant A Co. and entered into a retail installment contract with A Co. to finance the purchase, sought to recover damages from A Co. and the defendant W Co., the assignee of the contract, in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The plaintiff alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.) and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (§ 42-110a et seq.), and that, pursuant to § 52-572g (a), W Co. was subject to any claims or defenses that the plaintiff had against A Co. The contract contained the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ''holder rule'' language mandated by federal law (16 C.F.R. § 433.2). Shortly after the sale was completed, A Co. assigned the con- tract to W Co. Immediately after taking delivery of the vehicle, the plaintiff noticed certain problems and had it inspected by an independent auto body expert, who concluded that it was not safe to operate. Before making any payments under the contract, the plaintiff returned the vehicle to A Co., and his attorney notified A Co. and W Co., by certified letter, that the plaintiff had revoked his acceptan