Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-292 (2026)

Attachment in actions against voluntary associations and their members

✓ current as of May 2026

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

The property of a voluntary association, whether held by it or by trustees for its benefit, may be attached and held to respond to any judgment that may be recovered against it; but the individual property of its members shall not be liable to attachment or levy of execution in actions against such association to which such members are not parties. Any judgment obtained in a joint action against such association and its members shall be satisfied first from the personal property of such association, if the same is sufficient, and thereafter the property of any member of such association against whom judgment was rendered jointly with such association may be taken upon execution to satisfy the unpaid portion of such judgment. The attachment lien on the personal property of any member of such voluntary association against whom judgment is rendered in an action so brought shall not expire until two months from the completion of the levy issued upon the personal property of such association; and if real estate of any member has been attached in such action and judgment therein is rendered, the attachment lien thereon shall not expire until four months from the completion of the levy of the execution against the personal property of such association. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as prohibiting the plaintiff in any action of tort from satisfying such judgment out of the real estate of such association.

(1949 Rev., S. 8035.)

See Sec. 52-76 re actions by and against voluntary associations.

Creditor may sue association, or the individuals composing it; in the former case he can levy only on the property of the association. 55 C. 113.

Failure to return complaint for two and one-half years not diligent as required for application of statute. 50 CA 632.

Cited. 33 CS 730.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1966–2024 · leading case: Trinity Christian Sch. v. Comm'n on Human Rights, 189 A.3d 79 (Conn. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Trinity Christian Sch. v. Comm'n on Human Rights, 189 A.3d 79 (Conn. 2018). · cites it 4× “…(j) ; 8 General Statutes § 52-190b ; 9 **696 General Statutes § 52-225d (g) ; 10 General Statutes § 52-225 l (e) ; 11 General Statutes § 52-292 ; 12 General Statutes § 52-557q. 13 That subsection (d) was intended to operate as a rule of construction rather than a grant of…”

Stein v. Horton, 914 A.2d 606 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 2× “Further, the plaintiff has not initiated the present action pursuant to General Statutes § 52-292. 3 Instead, the plaintiff contends that the present action for unjust enrichment, which alleges that the defendants were unjustly enriched as a result of their failure to repay her…”

Briggs v. Merrell, 229 A.2d 550 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1966). · cites it 2× “In Gallo , our Supreme Court said that the case was barred by the Statute of Limitations (General Statutes §52-584), but the court did not base its result on the Statute of Limitations but on General Statutes § 52-292, “Accidental Failure of Suit; Allowance of New Action.”

Von Ribbeck v. Negroni (D. Conn. 2024). · cites it 2× “” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-292 (a). But subsection (d) of that same statute limits the actions to which “[t]he provisions of [that] section shall apply” to “any action between the same parties or the legal representatives of either of them for the same cause of action or subject of…”

Russell v. Mitchell Props., Inc., 87 A.3d 591 (Conn. App. Ct. 2014). · cites it 2× “Seven of these issues are iterations of the same basic claim: Whether § 52-593 applies to save the plaintiffs action? The remaining issue is cast as a claim invoking another saving statute, General Statutes § 52-292.”

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.