JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Herman
168 A.3d 514
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- JPMorgan Chase obtained a Florida money judgment against J. Maurice Herman (with fees and interest) that remained unsatisfied; the Florida court held proceedings in aid of execution and Herman admitted the existence of a Connecticut UBS brokerage account holding trust assets.
- Herman disclosed a trust (Marstack & Co.) for which he was settlor, trustee, and beneficiary; he identified a UBS financial advisor in Connecticut as the broker for the trust account.
- JPMorgan registered the Florida judgment in Connecticut and sought a turnover order under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-356b directing UBS Financial Services, Inc. to transfer cash or marketable securities (including trust assets) to satisfy the judgment.
- Herman objected, arguing Connecticut lacked personal jurisdiction over him and that the securities’ certificates were physically held at The Depository Trust Company in New York (thus New York situs).
- The trial court admitted evidence (account statement listing UBS Stamford address and advisor), granted the turnover order directed to UBS, and Herman appealed asserting lack of personal jurisdiction and that the written order deviated from the oral ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Connecticut courts had personal jurisdiction to enforce the foreign judgment against Herman by ordering turnover of securities held through a Connecticut broker | JPMorgan: UCC Article 8 treats the broker’s location as the proper intermediary to reach a security entitlement; the account was managed from UBS’s Stamford office so turnover in Connecticut is appropriate | Herman: He lacks sufficient contacts with Connecticut; the securities’ certificates are physically in New York (Depository Trust), so Connecticut cannot reach them and lacks jurisdiction | Court: Jurisdiction is fair—valid Florida judgment, account managed from UBS Stamford, UCC §8-112(c) requires process be directed to securities intermediary (UBS), and enforcing against property located in forum state is permissible postjudgment |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by excluding Herman’s affidavit purporting to show account management moved to UBS New York | JPMorgan: Affidavit was hearsay and not admissible; no admissible evidence contradicted that Stamford managed the account | Herman: Affidavit showed subsequent transfer of account management to Goodhue Advisory Group in NY, undermining jurisdiction | Court: Affidavit was hearsay with no exception asserted; exclusion was proper; defendant offered no admissible contrary evidence |
| Whether the written turnover order materially deviated from the court’s oral ruling (proper garnishee and scope) | JPMorgan: Application named UBS Financial Services, Inc.; evidence showed UBS Stamford office managed the account; written order tracked application and was consistent with oral ruling | Herman: Written order broadly directed UBS generally (not limited to Stamford) and reached accounts beyond the trust | Court: No impermissible deviation—order named UBS Financial Services, Inc. (the garnishee identified), Stamford was not a separate legal entity, and the written order reasonably clarified any oral ambiguity by directing turnover of cash and marketable securities including trust assets |
| Whether turnover order exceeded legal authority by reaching securities whose certificates are outside Connecticut | JPMorgan: UCC article 8 vests the entitlement against the securities intermediary (UBS), so turnover directed to UBS is lawful despite certificate location | Herman: Certificates in New York mean assets have New York situs; Connecticut cannot compel transfer | Court: UCC §42a-8-112(c) makes the security entitlement against the broker; directing UBS to transfer was within court authority |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (standard for minimum contacts and due process)
- Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (postjudgment enforcement and Full Faith and Credit principles)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (reasonableness/fairness inquiry for personal jurisdiction)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (anticipation of being haled into court)
- Bank of Babylon v. Quirk, 192 Conn. 447 (enforcement of foreign judgment against tangible property located in forum)
- Cahaly v. Somers, 89 Conn. App. 816 (procedures for defending enforcement of foreign judgments)
- State v. Denya, 294 Conn. 516 (deference to court’s interpretation/clarification of its own orders)