Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-139 (2026)

Set-off of mutual debts; procedure

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In any action brought for the recovery of a debt, if there are mutual debts between the plaintiff or plaintiffs, or any of them, and the defendant or defendants, or any of them, one debt may be set off against the other.

(b) No debt claimed by assignment may be set off unless the plaintiff had notice, at the commencement of the action, that the debt was due the defendant.

(c) If it appears upon the trial that the plaintiff is indebted to the defendant, the court shall give judgment for the defendant to recover the balance due of the plaintiff with his costs, except that no judgment may be given against the plaintiff to recover the balance of a debt due only a part of the defendants.

(1949 Rev., S. 7860; March, 1958, P.A. 27, S. 62; 1959, P.A. 28, S. 110; P.A. 82-160, S. 56.)

History: 1959 act deleted reference to judgment by justice of the peace; P.A. 82-160 rephrased the section and inserted Subsec. indicators.

See Sec. 37-2 re limitation on amount of interest, discount or damages for detention of money which may be recovered by a borrower.

“Mutual debts” defined. 7 C. 223; 8 C. 328; 81 C. 244; 88 C. 198; 108 C. 499; 114 C. 564. The debt set off must have been due and payable when the suit was brought. 32 C. 141, but see 108 C. 499. Suit by executor. 34 C. 66; 1 R. 428. Claims for unliquidated damages. 9 C. 433; 31 C. 343. Suit by receivers of bank, set-off of bills of bank disallowed. 22 C. 644. Interest on balance. 32 C. 564. Judgment debt; demand in plea for judgment for defendant. 28 C. 120. In a suit upon a partnership claim, defendant cannot set off a claim against one of the partners individually. 43 C. 80. Insolvency of savings bank; debtor cannot set off the amount of his deposit. Id., 155. Obligor in bond to a town in a criminal cause cannot set off a claim against the town. 45 C. 353. Debt against insolvent estate, barred by failure to present, may still be used as an offset. 46 C. 277. A defendant pleading set-off is virtually a plaintiff as respects that claim. 49 C. 91. Courts of equity sometimes allow a set-off where a court of law would not. Id., 569. Statutory right of set-off is reinforced and extended by practice act. 50 C. 301; 108 C. 499. Delinquent tax collector cannot set off his claim for salary. 51 C. 172. Lessee of administrator cannot set off debt of intestate against rent. 53 C. 500. Fundamental principles and tests of set-off. 55 C. 127; 108 C. 499. In an action of covenant against encumbrances, unpaid purchase notes of plaintiff may be used as a set-off. 55 C. 431. Set-off not recognized in an action for tort. 66 C. 508; 82 C. 361; 39 C. 366. In action by trustee in insolvency. 65 C. 76. Right of set-off in general; in action by receiver of bank. 88 C. 186; Id., 198. Personal debt of trustee cannot be set off in action by him as trustee. 86 C. 548. Is matter of defense. 82 C. 175. Unliquidated damages in contract may be set off in action on foreign judgment; equitable rights. 81 C. 244. In action against guarantor, he cannot set off debt owed him by plaintiff. 68 C. 525. Set-off of mutual debt not matured permitted where one of mutual debtors has been adjudicated insolvent; statute is not exclusive in its scope. 108 C. 499. Allegations of answer cannot operate as claim for set-off unless accompanied by claim for affirmative relief. 109 C. 5. Set-off between parties distinguished from an accord and satisfaction. Id., 245. Trust company may not set off its own deposits with private banker against certificate of deposit issued to private banker and deposited with State Treasurer in lieu of private banker's bond. 114 C. 560. Where no equitable considerations are involved, defendant under statute can set off debts only when they are presently due him. 117 C. 280; 128 C. 10. Set-off not allowed bank on note against maker's deposit which, before note matured, was assigned to one who paid valid consideration, neither maker nor bank being insolvent. Id., 276. Maker of note which had not matured when trust company suspended held entitled to set off deposit when receiver sued on note. 118 C. 42. Assignee of chose in action takes subject to equities and defenses arising before receipt of notice of assignment; no set-off against assignee where defendant at time of notice of assignment had no right to recover from assignor. 128 C. 4. Set-off distinguished from counterclaim; condition precedent to legal set-off is that it shall be in answer to suit on a debt. 130 C. 210. Cited. 191 C. 104; 207 C. 483.

Cited. 6 CA 106; Id., 417; 12 CA 353; 15 CA 362; 40 CA 536; 44 CA 759.

Cited. 3 Conn. Cir. Ct. 427. Unliquidated assigned claim cannot be set off in action in assumpsit. 4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 581.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 24 cases, 1965–2017 · leading case: Mariculture Prods. Ltd. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, 854 A.2d 1100 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mariculture Prods. Ltd. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, 854 A.2d 1100 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 4× “The defendants contend that contrary to the plaintiffs position, they were not required to plead setoff pursuant to General Statutes § 52-139 and Practice Book § 10-54 because they actually were seeking a credit, rather than a setoff, against the amount of their liability to the…”

225 Assocs. v. Connecticut Hous. Fin. Auth., 782 A.2d 189 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 5× ““Traditionally, the distinction between a setoff and a counterclaim centers around whether the claim arises from the same transaction described in the complaint.”

Elis v. Rogers, 544 A.2d 663 (Conn. App. Ct. 1988). · cites it 4× “The plaintiff bases his argument on the fallacious premise that an issue of setoff was involved in this case.”

Bank of Boston Connecticut v. Avon Meadow Assocs., 671 A.2d 1310 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996). · cites it 4× “” General Statutes § 52-139 (a). The defendants’ argument to this court that their counterclaim is broader than the plaintiffs claim demonstrates that it is properly denominated a setoff instead of only a reduction.”

OCI Mortg. Corp. v. Marchese, 774 A.2d 940 (Conn. 2001). · cites it 3× “and involves mutual debts between parties in any action: (1) to recover on a debt pursuant to § 52-139; (2) by an assignee of a nonnegotiable chose in action pursuant to General Statutes § 52-140; (3) for trespass to real or personal property or other tort committed without…”

Petti v. Balance Rock Assocs., 530 A.2d 1083 (Conn. App. Ct. 1987). · cites it 3× “The defendant’s third claim is that the court erred in refusing to admit into evidence the defendant’s bill for legal services and expenses incurred in the summary process action against the plaintiff, and in failing to apply the amount reflected in said statement as a setoff to…”

Hope's Architectural Prods., Inc. v. Fox Steel Co., 692 A.2d 829 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997). · cites it 3× “The law of set-off is governed by General Statutes § 52-139 (a), the relevant portion of which provides that “[i]n any action brought for the recovery of a debt, if there are mutual debts between the plaintiff .”

Nw. Elec., Inc. v. Rozbicki, 505 A.2d 750 (Conn. App. Ct. 1986). · cites it 2× “Traditionally, the distinction between a setoff and a counterclaim centers around whether the claim arises from the same transaction described in the complaint.”

Lind-Larsen v. Fleet Nat'l Bank, 852 A.2d 799 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 2× “A condition precedent to the application of the setoff statute, General Statutes § 52-139, is that the defendant’s claim arises from a debt due from the plaintiff.”

Gallicchio Bros., Inc. v. C & S OIL CO., 463 A.2d 600 (Conn. 1983). · cites it 2× “In order to fulfill the “mutuality-of-debts” requirements of General Statutes § 52-139, 4 C & S attempted to *109 prove that the plaintiff requested C & S to deliver fuel oil to these ten customers and thus was liable for the unpaid amounts still owed to C & S.”

Rosa v. Colonial Bank, 7 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 490 (Conn. 1988). · cites it 2× “General Statutes § 52-139 (a) provides that “[i]n any action brought for the recovery of a debt, if there are mutual debts between the plaintiff or plaintiffs, or any of them, and the defendant or defendants, or any of them, one debt may be set off against the other.”

Willie v. Amerada Hess Corp., 66 V.I. 23 (2017). “Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-139 (set-off of mutual debts authorized); Ala.”

Show all 24 citing cases →

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-139(a) — 1 case

Drill Masters-Eldorado Tool, Inc. v. PCC Specialty Prods., Inc., 49 F. Supp. 3d 188 (D. Conn. 2014).

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.