(a) No action founded upon any express contract or agreement which is not reduced to writing, or of which some note or memorandum is not made in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith or his agent, shall be brought but within three years after the right of action accrues.
(b) This section shall not apply to causes of action governed by article 2 of title 42a.
(1949 Rev., S. 8320; 1961, P.A. 116, S. 24; P.A. 82-160, S. 249.)
History: 1961 act excepted causes of action governed by article 2 of title 42a; P.A. 82-160 deleted the exception for “actions for a debt due by book or actions founded on proper subjects of book debt”, rephrased the section and inserted Subsec. indicators.
Applies to actions to recover unliquidated damages for nonperformance of executory contracts. 52 C. 146. Cited. 56 C. 25. When applied to suit against surgeon for breach of implied contract to use reasonable care and skill. 103 C. 720; 119 C. 507; 127 C. 386; 134 C. 259. Applied to oral agreement to pay wages during incapacity and to reemploy in consideration of waiver of right to damages for injury. 114 C. 732; 134 C. 259. Does not apply to action by employee to recover overtime pay and liquidated damages under federal Fair Labor Standards Act. 134 C. 246. History of section. Id., 258. Distinguished from Sec. 52-576; this section is restricted to executory contracts. Id., 259. Proof of existence and performance of contract unenforceable because of statute of frauds is a sufficient answer to defense of statute of limitations by showing that no action brought earlier could be maintained. Id., 536. Since contract was executed and all that remained was to pay plaintiff, section does not bar action. 134 C. 585. Applies only to executory contracts. Id.; 135 C. 179. Statute of limitations to run from the time when the cause of action accrues. 144 C. 170. When plaintiff's performance on oral contract has been completely executed, Sec. 52-576 and not this section establishes applicable limitation period. 170 C. 243. Cited. 210 C. 734; 214 C. 464; 217 C. 340.
Cited. 17 CA 159; 18 CA 525; 33 CA 702; 39 CA 289. Section's 3-year statute of limitations applies only to executory contracts and, therefore, did not apply to executed oral contract; 6-year statute of limitations in Sec. 52-576 applied. 76 CA 599. If a legal malpractice case is not ripe for adjudication until damage caused by alleged malpractice becomes evident upon final judgment in the underlying action, statute is tolled until such final judgment is rendered. 89 CA 690. Granting of motion for summary judgment in legal malpractice action on ground that action was commenced beyond the applicable statute of limitations was proper because statute of limitations began to run despite pendency of an appeal. 110 CA 679.
When statute begins to run. 3 CS 209. Applies to actions to recover unliquidated damages for nonperformance of executory contracts. 8 CS 264. Cited. 9 CS 401; Id., 522. History and scope discussed. 13 CS 174. Statute is tolled from incurrence of legal not apparent damage. 14 CS 464. Applies to suits based upon oral contract of employment under Fair Labor Standards Acts of 1938. 15 CS 3. Cited. 17 CS 61. Procedure required herein cannot be circumvented to avoid the 3-year limit set. 31 CS 434. Application restricted to executory contracts only, in contrast to application of Sec. 52-576 to contracts where party has fully performed. 37 CS 735. Cited. 39 CS 458.
Cited. 4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 367.
Subsec. (a):
Permits statutory requirement of a contract in writing to be satisfied by juxtaposition of two documents, each denoting the agreement of one of the parties, but not juxtaposition of two inconsistent documents; assumes existence of an underlying contractual commitment and addresses only the requirement of a written memorial thereof. 83 CA 715.
Notes of Decisions
Mac's Car City, Inc. v. DeNigris, 559 A.2d 712 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989).
· cites it 10× “” *528 The defendants’ amended answer denied paragraphs nineteen and twenty, and, by way of special defenses, alleged that they were retained for a limited purpose, and that the first count was barred by General Statutes § 52-581. 2 On April 7,1988, the trial court granted the…”
John H. Kolb & Sons, Inc. v. G & L Excavating, Inc., 821 A.2d 774 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 10× “On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) denied its motion for a judgment of dismissal at the conclusion of the *601 plaintiffs case, (2) determined that the six year statute of limitations set forth in General Statutes § 52-576 1 was applicable as opposed…”
Avon Meadow Condo. Ass'n v. Bank of Boston Connecticut, 719 A.2d 66 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998).
· cites it 11× “Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-581 , ‘No action founded upon any express contract or agreement which is not reduced to writing, or of which some note or memorandum is not made in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith or his agent, shall be brought but within…”
Vanliner Ins. v. Fay, 907 A.2d 1220 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006).
· cites it 8× “IV The defendant next claims that the court improperly determined that the six year statute of limitations set forth in § 52-576 12 was applicable to the plaintiffs *143 breach of contract claim, rather than the three year statute of limitations set forth in General Statutes §…”
Cupina v. Bernklau, 551 A.2d 37 (Conn. App. Ct. 1988).
· cites it 10× “To each count of the revised complaint the defendant raised two special defenses: first, that the plaintiff gave the monies to the defendant as gifts, and second, that the plaintiffs claims were barred by the three year statute of limitations, General Statutes § 52-581. The…”
Rosenfield v. I. David Marder & Assocs., LLC, 956 A.2d 581 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008).
· cites it 8× “On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that the action was commenced beyond the applicable statute of limitations, General Statutes § 52-581. 1 We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”
Hanover Ins. v. Fireman's Fund Ins., 586 A.2d 567 (Conn. 1991).
· cites it 5× “Although Hanover argues that its contribution claim did not rest “on the policy,” 12 and was therefore governed, not by *355 § 38-98, but rather by General Statutes § 52-581, 13 the statute of limitations for oral contracts, the contrary conclusion is equally possible.”
Suffield Dev. Assocs. Ltd. P'ship v. Soc'y for Sav., 708 A.2d 1361 (Conn. 1998).
· cites it 6× “The defendant claims that: (1) the plaintiffs breach *834 of contract claim was time barred under General Statutes § 52-581; 2 (2) the plaintiffs claim for breach of contract for a loan in excess of $50,000 was barred by the statute of frauds, General Statutes § 52-550 (a) (6);…”
Nassra v. Nassra, 183 A.3d 1198 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 8× “" This court has previously addressed the distinction between §§ 52-581 and 52-576. "These two statutes, each establishing a different period of limitation, can both be interpreted to apply to actions on oral contracts.”
Rios v. Ccmc Corp., 943 A.2d 544 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008).
· cites it 4× “, General Statutes § 52-581 ("[n]o action founded upon any express contract or agreement which is not reduced to writing, or of which some note or memorandum is not made in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith or his agent, shall be brought but within three…”
Sanborn v. Greenwald, 664 A.2d 803 (Conn. App. Ct. 1995).
· cites it 3× “The defendant, by way of special defenses, alleged that General Statutes §§ 52-581, 52-576 and 52-577 barred the plaintiffs recovery because his representation of her ceased on August 20, 1984.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-581(a) — 2 cases
Nassra v. Nassra, 183 A.3d 1198 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
“" This court has previously addressed the distinction between §§ 52-581 and 52-576. "These two statutes, each establishing a different period of limitation, can both be interpreted to apply to actions on oral contracts.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-581(b) — 1 case
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.