## Facts

- Robert Errato and Paul Denz executed a $93,000 commercial promissory note payable on demand to a bank, with monthly payments and 9.5% interest.
- The obligors defaulted, and the bank demanded payment.
- After a meeting with a bank loan officer, the obligors proposed a temporary payment arrangement: $500 per month toward principal only, with no interest; the bank accepted by letter.
- The bank received partial payments in 1992 that were credited to reduce the principal balance.
- The bank later sold and assigned its rights in the note to Cadle Company under a loan sale/assignment agreement.
- At trial, Cadle offered testimony about the sale and assignment, testimony that Cadle possessed the original note at its headquarters, the sale/assignment documentation, and a copy of the note (not the original).
- Cadle sued on the note in 1998; after a bench trial, judgment entered for Cadle, and Errato appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether admitting a copy of the promissory note and related assignment evidence, rather than the original note, violated evidentiary rules and undermined Cadle’s proof that it was a holder in due course.
2. Whether the action was barred by limitations statutes governing negotiable instruments and written contracts, or whether post-default arrangements and partial payments tolled the limitations period.
3. Whether admitting an internal bank memorandum under the business-records exception was erroneous and, if so, required reversal.

## Decision

- The judgment for Cadle was affirmed.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting secondary evidence of the note and assignment; the finding that Cadle established a prima facie case of holder-in-due-course status was not clearly erroneous.
- The action was not time-barred because evidence supported tolling based on post-default repayment arrangements and partial payments acknowledging the debt.
- Any error in admitting the internal memorandum was harmless because it was cumulative and Errato failed to show prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court has discretion to admit secondary evidence of a writing; admission of a copy of a note may be proper where its accuracy and contents are not meaningfully disputed.
- An assignee may prove a prima facie case of holder (including holder-in-due-course status) through credible testimony and assignment documentation, even if the original instrument is not produced at trial, if existence and terms are sufficiently shown.
- Statutes of limitations on enforcement of written debt obligations may be tolled by post-default repayment arrangements and partial payments that acknowledge the debt; limitations bars the remedy but does not extinguish the debt.
- Evidentiary error warrants reversal only upon a showing of harmful prejudice; admission of cumulative hearsay is generally harmless absent demonstrated prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court upheld judgment for an assignee enforcing a promissory note, holding that copies and supporting testimony could establish holder status, post-default payments could toll limitations, and any business-records evidentiary error was harmless without prejudice.


Cadle Co. v. Errato, 71 Conn. App. 447, 802 A.2d 887 (2002)