Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 33-887 (2026)

Unknown claims against dissolved corporation

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) A dissolved corporation may also publish notice of its dissolution and request that persons with claims against the dissolved corporation present them in accordance with the notice.

(b) The notice shall: (1) Be published one time in a newspaper of general circulation in the county where the dissolved corporation's principal office or, if none in this state, its registered office, is or was last located; (2) describe the information that must be included in a claim and provide a mailing address where the claim may be sent; and (3) state that a claim against the dissolved corporation will be barred unless a proceeding to enforce the claim is commenced within three years after the publication of the notice.

(c) If the dissolved corporation publishes a newspaper notice in accordance with subsection (b) of this section, the claim of each of the following claimants is barred unless the claimant commences a proceeding to enforce the claim against the dissolved corporation within three years after the publication date of the newspaper notice: (1) A claimant who was not given written notice under section 33-886; (2) a claimant whose claim was timely sent to the dissolved corporation but not acted on; and (3) a claimant whose claim is contingent or based on an event occurring after the effective date of dissolution.

(d) A claim that is not barred by subsection (c) of section 33-886 or subsection (c) of this section may be enforced under this section: (1) Against the dissolved corporation, to the extent of its undistributed assets; or (2) except as provided in subsection (d) of section 33-887a, if the assets have been distributed in liquidation, against a shareholder of the dissolved corporation to the extent of the shareholder's pro rata share of the claim or the corporate assets distributed to the shareholder in liquidation, whichever is less, but a shareholder's total liability for all claims under this section may not exceed the total amount of assets distributed to the shareholder.

(e) Nothing in this section shall extend any applicable period of limitation.

(P.A. 94-186, S. 168, 215; P.A. 96-271, S. 119, 254; P.A. 03-18, S. 30.)

History: P.A. 94-186 effective January 1, 1997; P.A. 96-271 added Subsec. (e) re extension of any applicable period of limitation, effective January 1, 1997; P.A. 03-18 made technical changes in Subsecs. (a) and (b), amended Subsec. (c) by replacing “did not receive written notice” with “was not given written notice” in Subdiv. (1) and making a technical change, and amended Subsec. (d) by adding provision re claim that is not barred by Sec. 33-886(c) or Subsec. (c) and, in Subdiv. (2), adding exception to provisions of Sec. 33-887a(d) and making technical changes, effective July 1, 2003.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2014–2025 · leading case: Scalise v. East Greyrock, LLC, 85 A.3d 7 (Conn. App. Ct. 2014).
Scalise v. East Greyrock, LLC, 85 A.3d 7 (Conn. App. Ct. 2014). · cites it 4× “nt twelve); abnormally dangerous or ultra-hazardous activities (count thirteen); violation of the Common Interest Ownership Act under General Statutes § 47-264 (count fourteen); violation of the Common Interest Ownership Act under General Statutes § 47-265 (count fifteen);…”
Roumeliotis v. Nordenson (D. Conn. 2024). · cites it 4× “See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 33-887 (c). These claims include those brought by a claimant “who was not given written notice under section 33-886”, “whose claim was timely sent to the dissolved corporation but not acted on”, or “whose claim is contingent or based on an event occurring…”
Zuvic, Carr & Assocs., Inc. v. Morande Bros., Inc. (Conn. App. Ct. 2015). · cites it 4× “General Statutes § 33-887 (a) through (c).”
In re: The Nash Eng'g Co. (D. Conn. 2025). · cites it 2× “The Insurance Buyback Agreement provided for Nash to file a certificate of dissolution, with the effect of starting the three-year post-dissolution period pursuant to C.G.S. § 33-887, within which claims could be filed against Nash.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.