Mutual Security Credit Union v. Hardy

Syllabus

The plaintiff credit union sought to recover damages from the defendant for a deficiency balance arising from her default on a retail installment sales contract for the purchase of a motor vehicle, which the plaintiff had repos- sessed and sold following the defendant's default. The defendant also sought to recover damages from the plaintiff in a counterclaim under article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) (§ 42a-9-625) and the Retail Install- ment Sales Financing Act (RISFA) (§ 36a-785). The trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the defendant's counterclaim, concluding that the defendant's counterclaim for damages under §§ 42a-9- 625 and 36a-785 was barred by the one year limitation period set forth in the statute of limitations (§ 52-585) governing actions \for any forfeiture upon any penal statute . . . .\ The defendant appealed from the trial court's ruling on the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Held: The trial court having improperly applied the one year limitation period in § 52-585 to the defendant's counterclaim under both article 9 of the UCC and RISFA, that court also improperly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and, accordingly, this court reversed in part the trial court's ruling on that motion and remanded the case for further proceedings. In so concluding, this court was guided by its decision in the companion case of Connex Credit Union v. Madgic (354 Conn. 459), in which the court concluded that, because §§ 42a-9-625 and 36a-785 are not penal statutes, the one year limitation period in § 52-585 is not applicable to claims brought under those statutes and that the three year limitation period set forth in the statute of limitations (§ 52-577) governing tort claims was the most suit- able limitation period for claims brought under §§ 42a-9-625 and 36a-785. Argued February 5—officially released April 28, 2026