Ballou v. LAW OFFICES HOWARD LEE SCHIFF
304 Conn. 348
| Conn. | 2012Background
- Ballou owed two consumer card debts purchased by Midland Funding; small claims judgments were entered against Ballou for $3,203.11 and $997.28.
- Installment payment orders were issued under § 52-356d for $35/week and $50/month respectively, but no postjudgment interest was requested or awarded by the small claims court.
- Midland’s law firm represented by Schiff sought bank executions directing the marshal to collect postjudgment interest at 10%, despite the absence of an interest award in the judgments.
- Ballou filed a federal suit alleging FDCPA violations, arguing automatic postjudgment interest had been collected without authority in violation of the debt-collection rules.
- The United States District Court certified two questions under § 51-199b(d) concerning whether § 52-356d(e) creates automatic postjudgment interest and, if so, at what rate.
- The Connecticut Supreme Court answered the first question in the negative, holding postjudgment interest is not automatic under § 52-356d(e); interest may accrue only if awarded under other statutory provisions or by agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 52-356d(e) mandatorily accrue postjudgment interest? | Ballou argues § 52-356d(e) requires automatic accrual of interest on judgments with installment orders. | Schiff argues § 52-356d(e) implies automatic accrual until payment is complete. | No; § 52-356d(e) does not mandate automatic postjudgment interest. |
| What rate applies if postjudgment interest is awarded? | If automatic, rate would be 10% per § 37-3a; otherwise unknown. | Rate would be determined by § 37-3a or by agreement; § 52-356d(e) does not fix a rate. | Rate not determined because automatic accrual is not mandated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Discover Bank v. Mayer, 127 Conn.App. 813 (Conn. App. 2011) (discretionary postjudgment interest under § 52-356d(e) with installment orders; no mandatory accrual under that statute)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Board of Tax Review, 241 Conn. 749 (1997) (clarifies 10% cap under § 37-3a; not controlling here)
- Suffield Development Associates Ltd. Partnership v. National Loan Investors, L.P., 97 Conn.App. 541 (Conn. App. 2006) (appellate treatment of postjudgment interest rate discretion under § 37-3a(a))
- Little v. United National Investors Corp., 160 Conn. 534 (1971) (established that parties may contract to nonusurious rates and defined legal rate under § 37-1(a)-(b))
- Hubbard v. Callahan, 42 Conn. 524 (1875) (early presumption of legal interest rate when rate not specified; groundwork for § 37-1)
- Beckwith v. Trustees of Hartford, Providence & Fishkill Railroad, 29 Conn. 268 (1860) (distinguishes interest as contractual vs. damages for detained money)