Connecticut General Statutes|Sec. 42a-3-605. Discharge of endorsers and accommodation parties.

                                                

Sec. 42a-3-605. Discharge of endorsers and accommodation parties. (a) In this section, the term “endorser” includes a drawer having the obligation described in section 42a-3-414(d).


(b) Discharge, under section 42a-3-604, of the obligation of a party to pay an instrument does not discharge the obligation of an endorser or accommodation party having a right of recourse against the discharged party.


(c) If a person entitled to enforce an instrument agrees, with or without consideration, to an extension of the due date of the obligation of a party to pay the instrument, the extension discharges an endorser or accommodation party having a right of recourse against the party whose obligation is extended to the extent the endorser or accommodation party proves that the extension caused loss to the endorser or accommodation party with respect to the right of recourse.


(d) If a person entitled to enforce an instrument agrees, with or without consideration, to a material modification of the obligation of a party other than an extension of the due date, the modification discharges the obligation of an endorser or accommodation party having a right of recourse against the person whose obligation is modified to the extent the modification causes loss to the endorser or accommodation party with respect to the right of recourse. The loss suffered by the endorser or accommodation party as a result of the modification is equal to the amount of the right of recourse unless the person enforcing the instrument proves that no loss was caused by the modification or that the loss caused by the modification was an amount less than the amount of the right of recourse.


(e) If the obligation of a party to pay an instrument is secured by an interest in collateral and a person entitled to enforce the instrument impairs the value of the interest in collateral, the obligation of an endorser or accommodation party having a right of recourse against the obligor is discharged to the extent of the impairment. The value of an interest in collateral is impaired to the extent (i) the value of the interest is reduced to an amount less than the amount of the right of recourse of the party asserting discharge, or (ii) the reduction in value of the interest causes an increase in the amount by which the amount of the right of recourse exceeds the value of the interest. The burden of proving impairment is on the party asserting discharge.


(f) If the obligation of a party is secured by an interest in collateral not provided by an accommodation party and a person entitled to enforce the instrument impairs the value of the interest in collateral, the obligation of any party who is jointly and severally liable with respect to the secured obligation is discharged to the extent the impairment causes the party asserting discharge to pay more than that party would have been obliged to pay, taking into account rights of contribution, if impairment had not occurred. If the party asserting discharge is an accommodation party not entitled to discharge under subsection (e), the party is deemed to have a right to contribution based on joint and several liability rather than a right to reimbursement. The burden of proving impairment is on the party asserting discharge.


(g) Under subsection (e) or (f), impairing value of an interest in collateral includes (i) failure to obtain or maintain perfection or recordation of the interest in collateral, (ii) release of collateral without substitution of collateral of equal value, (iii) failure to perform a duty to preserve the value of collateral owed, under article 9 or other law, to a debtor or surety or other person secondarily liable, or (iv) failure to comply with applicable law in disposing of collateral.


(h) An accommodation party is not discharged under subsection (c), (d) or (e) unless the person entitled to enforce the instrument knows of the accommodation or has notice under section 42a-3-419(c) that the instrument was signed for accommodation.


(i) A party is not discharged under this section if (i) the party asserting discharge consents to the event or conduct that is the basis of the discharge, or (ii) the instrument or a separate agreement of the party provides for waiver of discharge under this section either specifically or by general language indicating that parties waive defenses based on suretyship or impairment of collateral.


(1959, P.A. 133, S. 3-605; P.A. 91-304, S. 67.)


See Sec. 42a-3-604 for successor provisions to Sec. 42a-3-605, revised to 1991, re discharge by cancellation or renunciation.


Cited. 193 C. 304; 225 C. 367; 229 C. 224.


Cited. 4 CA 376.


History: P.A. 91-304 entirely replaced former provisions re cancellation and renunciation with provisions re discharge of endorsers and accommodation parties, a restatement in part of Sec. 42a-3-606(1).

View Latest Dockets

29 Files
Filed

Mar 28, 2022

Judge

Hon. Claudia A. Baio Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Claudia A. Baio

Court

Fairfield County

County

Fairfield County, CT

19 Files
Filed

Oct 15, 2013

Judge

Hon. Kevin S. Russo Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Kevin S. Russo

Court

Fairfield County

County

Fairfield County, CT

Practice Area

Property

Matter Type

Foreclosure

23 Files
Filed

Aug 02, 2023

Judge

Hon. Susan Quinn Cobb Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Susan Quinn Cobb

Court

Superior

County

Hartford County, CT

6 Files
Filed

Nov 27, 2023

Court

Superior

County

Hartford County, CT

Practice Area

Insurance

Matter Type

Insurance Coverage

22 Files
Filed

Mar 10, 2015

Court

New Haven County

County

New Haven County, CT

Practice Area

Creditor

Matter Type

Collections

View More Dockets

View Latest Documents

preview-icon 2 pages

HFH-CV22-6019756-S Superior Court Ansonia Acquisitions I, LLC, Housing Session d/b/a Woodcliff Estates (80 Washington Street Hartford, CT 06106) v. Annette Rodriguez …

County

Fairfield County, CT

Filed Date

Jul 20, 2022

Judge Hon. Claudia A. Baio Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Claudia A. Baio
preview-icon 4 pages

DOCKET NO.: NNH CV-12-6031105S = : SUPERIOR COURT NRT NEW ENGLAND LLC d/b/a Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN V. : ATNEW HAVEN CHRISTOPHER G. L. JONES : SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION On July 28, 2014 this court rendered a Memorandum of Decision finding that the plaintiff had proven damages of $34,375.00 on the second count. This court scheduled a hearing to determine the amount of attorney’s fees and costs, and the amount of the total judgmen…

County

New Haven County, CT

Filed Date

Sep 23, 2014

Judge Hon. Michael G. Maronich Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Michael G. Maronich
preview-icon 7 pages

No. FST-CV15-5014471-S JEREMY COLLINS, : SUPERIOR COURT MOLLY MCCULLOUGH Plaintiffs : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD vs. | AT STAMFORD MARGARET MONTANARO Defendant : March 9, 2015 AMENDED COMPLA FIRST COUNT 1. is is an action brought under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (hereinafter, "CUTPA"), Chapter 735a Section 42-110g of the Connecticut General Statutes in order to obtain relief against Defendant for alleged violations of General Statutes Section 42-11 0b(a), prohibiting u…

County

Fairfield County, CT

Filed Date

Mar 09, 2015

Judge Hon. Douglas C. Mintz Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Douglas C. Mintz
preview-icon 7 pages

No. FST-CV15-5014471-S JEREMY COLLINS, f SUPERIOR COURT MOLLY MCCULLOUGH : Plaintiffs i JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD vs. : AT STAMFORD MARGARET MONTANARO Defendant : March 9, 2015 REVISED COMPLAINT FIRST COUNT 1 This is an action brought under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (hereinafter, "CUTPA"), Chapter 735a Section 42-110g of the Connecticut General Statutes in order to obtain relief against Defendant for alleged violations of General Statutes Section 42-110b(a), prohibiting …

County

Fairfield County, CT

Filed Date

Mar 09, 2015

Judge Hon. Douglas C. Mintz Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Douglas C. Mintz
preview-icon 9 pages

No. FST-CV15-5014471-S JEREMY COLLINS, z SUPERIOR COURT MOLLY MCCULLOUGH ie Plaintiffs : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD vs. AT STAMFORD MARGARET MONTANARO Defendant : April 24, 2015 REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT In the above entitled action, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that they be granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, which is appended to this request, pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book 10-60(a)(3). BY: St MA. e Jeremy Collins & Molly Mc@ulloug…

County

Fairfield County, CT

Filed Date

Apr 24, 2015

Judge Hon. Douglas C. Mintz Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Douglas C. Mintz
View More Documents

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope