A Connecticut Law Blog

by Ryan C. McKeen

I’ve had two contractors at my home that have fully complied with the existing Connecticut Home Improvement Act. That’s two out of many.

The truth is that the Connecticut Home Improvement Act requires full compliance by contractors with its many provisions.

This past session, the legislature passed and Governor Rell has signed a law that requires contractors to provide homeowners with a written disclosure of any corporation, limited liability company, partnership, sole proprietorship or other legal entity, which is or has been a new home construction contractor under the provisions of this chapter or a home improvement contractor under the provisions of chapter 400, in which the owner or owners of the new home construction contractor providing the written notice required by this section are or have been a shareholder, member, partner or owner during the previous five years….Link.

Contractors can no longer go from Ryan’s Painting to Ryan’s Painting & Gutters, LLC, to Ryan’s AAA Painting, Inc. to Ryan’s Paint, LLC in a span of a few years without informing consumers.

Of course contractors who engage in this practice probably don’t comply with other provisions of the home improvement act in the first place. In essence, this is just one more provision that contractors who didn’t comply won’t comply with.

June 30th, 2009 | Tags: ct contractors, ct home improvement act, ct home improvement law | Category: A Connecticut Law Blog, Legislation, Small Business | CommentsNew+Connecticut+Home+Improvement+Contractor+Law++++++2009-06-30+11%3A01%3A13Ryan

by Ryan McKeen

Yesterday, I had a conversation with a lawyer who informed me that New York does not have no fault divorce. Instead, the parties must prove fault.

I was shocked to learn this.

In Connecticut, divorce is the only area of practice that I can think of where the ultimate outcome is never in question. If a party wants to get divorced they have to file for divorce and that’s pretty much it. Generally, there’s never a question as to whether or not the divorce will happen and that’s a good thing.

Connecticut law recognizes that marriages can breakdown without cruelty, abondonement, or adultery.

I was astonished to learn that New York has what amounts to some of the most conservative divorce laws in the country.

Some may argue that no fault divorce laws make divorce too easy and that ultimately harms society. I’ll argue that people don’t get divorced for fun and trapping people in bad marriages is worse for society.

In sum: Connecticut > New York.

June 24th, 2009 | Tags: ct divorce | Category: A Connecticut Law Blog, Family Law | CommentsYou+Know+What%27s+Worse+Than+Getting+Divorced+In+Connecticut%3F+Not+Getting+Divorced+In+New+York.2009-06-24+12%3A28%3A01Ryan

by Ryan McKeen

Jon: “I don’t hate Kate BUT….”

I hear “it was nice BUT all the time.” For example, it was a great restaurant BUT the service was horrible or it was a great movie BUT it was too long.

The truth is great restaurants have great service and great movies end too soon.

I used to say it.

When I was in college I served as President of the Student Government Association. One time, I was speaking with my advisor, Angeline. I pulled a “I really like So and So” and then I dropped the BUT bomb and proceeded to run of a list of faults.

Everyone needs an Angeline in their life. She’s a great teacher. Being a great teacher she called me on it. She said you don’t like  ”So and So.” It wasn’t the reaction I expected.

Angeline told me I said BUT. You see she said “when you say BUT you negate what comes before BUT. If you’re honest, you cut to what’s after the BUT.”

Angeline was right.

If credibility is king than BUT has no place in a lawyer’s vocabulary.

What Jon said is “I don’t hate Kate BUT” what if he was being upfront he would have cut to the chase and said “I don’t like Kate”.

June 23rd, 2009 | Tags: Divorce, jon and kate, words | Category: A Connecticut Law Blog | CommentsWhat+Lawyers+Can+Learn+From+Jon+and+Kate+Plus+82009-06-23+04%3A01%3A42Ryan

by Ryan C. McKeen

Counseling clients in a divorce is a little like being an airline pilot.

Clients are a lot like airline passengers and the process of divorce is a lot like a flying on a commercial aircraft. For starters, passengers know their final destination……getting a divorce.

I often think divorce cases follow the arc of a flight. It’s always bumpy on take off. Always.

On take off, a plane goes from 0 mph in a state of rest on the ground to 500 mph and 35,000 feet in the air in a little under 15 minutes. A person’s marriage is right before filing for divorce is a lot like that sitting plane because once it starts moving lots of things in a person’s life become up in the air.

In the early part of a divorce, I commonly see clients stress over often sudden and rapid changes that start happening in their lives. There’s always friction with the spouse as new rules get put into place.

Once the parties reach cruising altitude things are relatively calm for a period of a few months. Sometimes, there are a few bumps along the way but for the most part tray tables are down and you are free to move about the cabin.

Then comes landing. I almost always see bumps at the very end of a divorce. I think there are a number of reasons for it: dislike, anger, and trouble letting go being the most frequent cause of bumpy landings. But there’s usually one last marital spat prior to the court ordering a divorce.

There’s a post for another day about flights that experience constant turbulence but those are the exception.

From my point of view, as a passenger, I appreciate when the pilot informs the cabin that the flight may experience some turbulence. I think the same holds true for the relationship between an attorney handling a divorce and a client - it’s best to let a client know in advance where and when turbulence can be expected.

June 22nd, 2009 | Tags: Divorce | Category: A Connecticut Law Blog, Family Law | CommentsThe+Process+of+Divorce2009-06-22+04%3A01%3A06Ryan

by Ryan McKeen

Effective July 1, 2009, the cost of litigating claims in Connecticut is going up:

1. the jury fee in civil actions, from $ 350 to $ 425;

2. the filing fee for bringing a case in the Superior Court, from (a) $ 225 to $ 300 and (b) from $ 120 to $ 175, for a case in which the sole claim for relief is damages of up to $ 2,500 and for summary process, landlord and tenant, and paternity actions;

3. entry fee for small claims court, from $ 35 to $ 75;

4. fees to transfer a small claims case to the regular docket from $ 75 to $ 125;

5. designation of a case as a complex litigation from $ 250 to $ 325;

6. application for a prejudgment remedy, from $ 100 to $ 175;

7. a motion to open, set aside, modify, or extend any Superior Court civil judgment, (a) from $ 35 to $ 75 for housing matters, (b) $ 25 to $ 75 for small claims matters, and (c) from $ 70 to $ 125, for other matters;

8. filing a motion to open or reargue a judgment in any civil appeal rendered by the Supreme Court or Appellate Court or to reconsider any other civil matter decided in either court, from $ 70 to $ 125; and

9. application by a judgment creditor for (a) an execution against the personal property of a judgment debtor or the debt due from a financial institution or (b) a wage execution against a judgment debtor who fails to comply with an installment payment order, from $ 35 to $ 75. Link.

June 15th, 2009 | Category: A Connecticut Law Blog, Legislation, Litigation, Small Claims | CommentsConnecticut+Court+Filing+Fees+To+Increase+On+July+1%2C+20092009-06-15+04%3A01%3A50Ryan

by Ryan C. McKeen

No two things are more alike than courts and airports.

Walk into both and you’ll pass through security. Sometimes you’ll have to take your shoes off. Your bag will certainly pass through an X-Ray machine.

People have luggage. 

Once inside, you’ll find yourself in a bustle of activity. People everywhere.

You’ll rush to where you’re supposed to be.

Hurry up and wait.

Once you get there, you may be surprised to find out that what you came for is delayed or canceled and the fun begins.

Sometimes things go smoothly and you’re off.

Most of the time it’s hurry up and wait.

In both places, patience is the key to sanity and reading material can provide for a welcome distraction.

Whether you’re about to enjoy you’re flight or you’re time in court remember to wash your hands.

June 12th, 2009 | Category: A Connecticut Law Blog | CommentsGoing+To+Court+Is+Like+Going+to+The+Airport2009-06-12+04%3A01%3A34Ryan

by Ryan McKeen

Sometimes I love reading cases.

In D’Amico v. Tomkalski, 1999 WL 162985 (1999), Judge Pellegrino writes a home run of an opinion.

The plaintiff, a baserunner in a softball game, was struck by a ball thrown by a second baseman as he was either on the base path or moving out of the base path.

The runner then sued the second baseman under two theories: negligence and recklessness. The defendant moved to strike the plaintiff’s negligence count.

Under existing Connecticut law at the time, the Supreme Court had held that a plaintiff’s injury during a soccer game was not compensable under a negligence theory. Jaworski v. Kiernan, 241 Conn. 399 (1997).

The plaintiff argued that the Court’s ruling in Jaworski only applied to contact sports and that softball was not a contact sport.

Here’s what Judge Pellegrino had to say in response to the plaintiff’s argument:

A game where a ball is thrown, even at a slow speed, toward a batter so that it will be hit and, if possible caught by fielders poses risk of injury.The injury can arise from a batter being hit, a runner being struck, a fielder misjudging the trajectory of a hit or thrown ball. Even professional players are injured by such unintentional mistakes. Indeed such occurrences are recorded in official statistics called “errors.” Baseball is a contact sport.

There you have it: baseball is a contact sport.

June 11th, 2009 | Category: A Connecticut Law Blog | CommentsConnecticut+Baseball+Law2009-06-11+04%3A01%3A29Ryan

by Ryan McKeen

Learning from the little things.

I’ve been doing a lot of reflecting on litigation and with good reason. Other than a real estate closing, forming a company, or doing an estate plan - it’s most of what I do.

A few weeks back, I was involved in a small dispute between a landlord and tenant. As is often, but not always the case, I was representing a landlord. This just happened to be a security deposit dispute. The plaintiff was pro se.

I tried my darnedest to negotiate a settlement in the case with the plaintiff.

Using my best reasoning skills, I spent a half hour trying to negotiate a fair proposal and avoid a hearing.

The plaintiff heard what I was saying in the hallway that day but it may as well have fallen on deaf ears.

Why?

In the plaintiff’s own words: “I paid my filing fee, I want the judge to hear this.” The plaintiff asserted her right to the fundamental right to be heard.

So we went into court and tried the case.

In practice, I see the need to be heard as one of the fundamental needs/wants/hopes of all parties. When a person feels wronged and he wants to tell someone about it. Ideally, he wants someone to validate his claim, but he’ll often settle for being heard.

From what I’ve observed, to most clients, it doesn’t matter who hears the case. It doesn’t matter the title of the person sitting at the head of the table. The person could be a judge, magistrate, JTR, housing specialist, family relations officer, an ATR or a private trained mediator.

Most of the time the only thing that matters is that the person listens and is neutral. That’s one of the reasons why I think mediations tend to resolve cases.

Back to my pro se plaintiff.

We got a ruling from the magistrate in the case and it turns out that my offer was slightly ($23) more generous than what the magistrate ordered in the plaintiff’s favor.

I haven’t spoken with the plaintiff since we left court that day but I’m willing to bet the plaintiff would tell me that the $23 that it cost her to have the hearing was money well spent.

June 10th, 2009 | Category: A Connecticut Law Blog | CommentsThe+Need+To+Be+Heard2009-06-10+04%3A01%3A49Ryan

by Ryan C. McKeen

Alright, it’s actually $3 Charles but that’s beside the point.

Two Buck Chuck is made by Charles Shaw and is exclusive to Trader Joe’s.

According to Trader Joe’s website “Two Buck Chuck” has become the nation’s best selling wines.  I love it. There’s always a case in my house.

Unfortunately, Lou Merloni’s home town of Framingham Massaschusetts is the closest location for Connecticut residents to purchase this nectar of the gods.

Why are Connecticut residents deprived of two buck chuck? Because in Connecticut grocery stores are only permitted to sell beer. Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 30-20.

The legislature should immediately amend section 30-20 to allow supermarkets to sell wine. Doing so would allow Trader Joe’s to stock their shelves with two buck chuck.

Come on legislature, free the grapes!

June 9th, 2009 | Category: A Connecticut Law Blog | CommentsNo+Two-Buck+Chuck+For+You%212009-06-09+04%3A01%3A22Ryan