Legal Opinion

Terracino v. Gordon and Hiller

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided June 22, 2010No. AC 29837PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

PETERS, J.

This case lies at the intersection of two principles of the law of suretyship. One principle permits a guarantor expressly to waive common-law defenses to his liability for the debt of another. Connecticut National Bank v. Douglas, 221 Conn. 530, 544-45, 606 A.2d 684 (1992). The other principle presumes that, between coguarantors for the same debt, each coguarantor is liable only for a contributive share of the total outstanding debt. Restatement (Third), Suretyship and Guaranty §§55 through 57 (1996); Collins v. Throckmorton, 425 A.2d 146, 151-52 (Del. 1980); Albrecht v.…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Wadia Enterprises, Inc. v. HirschfeldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
  2. Connecticut National Bank v. DouglasSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
  3. Keller v. BeckensteinConnecticut Appellate Court · 2009
  4. Albrecht v. WalterNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Collins v. ThrockmortonSupreme Court of Delaware · 1980

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Terracino v. BuzziConnecticut Appellate Court · 2010
  2. Terracino v. Gordon and HillerConnecticut Appellate Court · 2010

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API