Unifoods, S.A. de C.V. v. Magallanes

Syllabus

The plaintiff appealed from the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants M and C, the owners of F Co. The plaintiff, which had obtained a federal court judgment against F Co. and its successor in interest, I Co., claimed that M and C had fraudulently concealed and transferred business assets and income in an effort to avoid the judgment. Held: The trial court properly determined that M and C had satisfied their burden of proving that no genuine issue of material fact existed that the plaintiff's claims were time barred under the one year and four year limitation periods of the Connecticut Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (§ 52-552j (1) and (2)). The plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as to when it discovered or reasonably could have discovered the allegedly fraudulent transfers within the limitation period of § 52-552j (1) or the tolling provision of the statute (§ 52-595) governing fraudulent conceal- ment. An unsworn declaration by the plaintiff's export director did not constitute competent evidence of any fraudulent transfer, as it was not based on personal knowledge, lacked a foundation for its claims and relied on specula- tion and conjecture. Argued September 19—officially released December 31, 2024