Great Country Bank v. Ogalin, 168 Conn. App. 783

Plaintiff (Cadle Company, assignee of Great Country Bank) obtained a deficiency judgment against defendant Frank Ogalin, Jr., and pursued postjudgment collection against Drywall Construction Corp. (Drywall), a family-owned employer of the defendant.
Plaintiff served a property execution on Drywall in December 2013 and, after Drywall refused payment, sought a turnover order under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 52-356a–c.
Evidence centered on four manila envelopes prepared by Drywall’s president, Christina Ogalin, containing ~700 receipts and envelope totals that aggregated to $25,080.41; plaintiff argued these represented unreimbursed business expenses owed to the defendant.
Christina Ogalin’s deposition testimony (pre-execution) stated the envelopes reflected obligations owed to the defendant; her later testimony at the posttrial hearing attempted to reallocate many charges to herself or another officer and to assert prior reimbursements.
The trial court found Ogalin’s later testimony not credible, credited her earlier deposition and the documentary exhibits, reduced the total to $19,887.27 (excluding nonbusiness items and contested reimbursements), and issued a turnover order against Drywall for that amount.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported finding Drywall owed defendant $19,887.27 as of the execution date	Evidence (pre-execution deposition + envelopes) showed unreimbursed business expenses owed to the defendant; court could credit those materials	Drywall relied on Ogalin’s posttrial testimony that expenses had been reimbursed or belonged to others and that envelopes lacked specific connection to defendant	Court upheld finding under clearly erroneous standard; ample evidence (deposition + records) supported award and court credibility determinations
Whether debts for employee-incurred reimbursable business expenses are "earnings" exempt from execution	N/A (plaintiff argued debts were collectible nonexempt property)	Drywall argued reimbursements are akin to wages/"earnings" (statutorily exempt) and therefore not subject to turnover	Court declined to consider claim because Drywall did not raise it below; also noted defendant (judgment debtor) did not file statutory exemption claim

Morgan Buildings & Spas, Inc. v. Dean’s Stoves & Spas, Inc., 58 Conn. App. 560 (discussing clearly erroneous standard and appellate review of factual findings)
Somers v. Chan, 110 Conn. App. 511 (deference to trial court credibility determinations)
Antonucci v. Antonucci, 164 Conn. App. 95 (trial judge may accept or reject testimony in whole or part)
White v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., 313 Conn. 610 (preservation rules—appellate courts generally will not review claims raised first on appeal)
Board of Education v. Tavares Pediatric Center, 276 Conn. 544 (scope of ‘‘action’’ for appealability purposes)
PB Real Estate, Inc. v. Dem II Properties, 50 Conn. App. 741 (third party appeal from turnover order)