Click here to view the embedded video.

Freed McKeen, LLC has teamed up with the Glastonbury River Runners to bring you the “Freed McKeen Race To Fill The Pantry 5k”. The race is Sunday, November 10, 2013 in Glastonbury.$5 from every registration fee will be donated to the Glastonbury Food Bank. Participants are also asked to donate a non-perishable food item, such as canned vegetables or soup, boxed stuffing etc.

In 2012 the Glastonbury River Runners were able to donate $1900 to the town Food Bank, right in time for Thanksgiving. $1500 of this came from race registrations; $400 was donated by Whole Foods.

My New Year’s Resolution for 2013 was to run at least one mile every day. Today is day 127 of his run streak. I have  pledged to donate one item of food for each day of my run streak.

The race is fantastic. The course is flat and fast. The race is very well organized. We hope to see you in Glastonbury this November. We’re proud to sponsor this outstanding race and give back to our community.

Click here to register online.

]]> http://aconnecticutlawblog.com/2013/05/freed-mckeen-race-to-fill-the-pantry/feed/ 0 http://aconnecticutlawblog.com/2013/04/one-runners-thoughts-on-the-boston-marathon/ http://aconnecticutlawblog.com/2013/04/one-runners-thoughts-on-the-boston-marathon/#comments Tue, 16 Apr 2013 13:34:00 +0000 Ryan McKeen http://aconnecticutlawblog.com/?p=4524

“As a runner, there seems to be a collective feeling that one day, you’ll run Boston.” – Elizabeth Corneau, Boston.com

I don’t have the words to explain how much I respect anyone who runs Boston.

For runners, the Boston Marathon is the Holy Grail. It is the world’s oldest annual marathon. It is the “Granddaddy of Them All”.  It is arguably the greatest athletic event on the planet.

Yesterday, I was messaged by several concerned friends asking me if I had run the race. I hadn’t. I can’t. I’m not close to being good enough. Maybe someday but not today and not tomorrow. Maybe never. My best time in the marathon is 3 hours and 52 minutes.

The best professional runners in the world run Boston. The race is prestigious. The prize money is hefty. But those professional runners make up a small fraction of a small percentage of the 26k runners that toe the line in Hopkinton.

The best amateur runners in the world run Boston. Qualifying for Boston is a great athletic achievement. In running circles it is simply known by two letters “BQ” (for Boston Qualifier). A man, age 18-34 must run a 3:05:00 marathon in the year and a half prior to running Boston. That’s running a 7:03 per mile pace for 26.2 miles.  To give you some idea how fast that is, the next time you are on a treadmill, set the pace up to 8.9. That’s the pace that runners must hold for 26 miles 385 yards. And unlike a treadmill, runners have to contend with hills, wind, heat and sun.

Qualifying times are adjusted for age and gender. But the goal of the BAA is to have all qualifiers run the equivalent of 7:03 minute miles for 26.2 taking into account age and gender. You can see a chart of qualifying times by clicking here.

For many, many, runners qualifying for Boston is the product of years of hard work. The runners balance jobs and families while pursuing their goal of running 26 miles 385 yards in 3 hours and 5 minutes. Some runners spend years trying only to come up just short of qualifying.

Some in the running community refer to Boston as a 26.2 mile victory lap. The race is so great that it’s seen as a reward for qualifying.

But that’s also only part of the story of Boston.

The only other way to get into Boston is to be one of the world’s most charitable runners. There are a certain number of entries given to specific charities by the BAA. Runners generally raise approximately $5000 to gain entry into the Boston Marathon. In 2012, the marathon raised 11.4 million dollars for charity. The stories of the charity runners are touching. You raise $5000 to run 26.2 miles for a reason. If you want to be moved, read “Here’s To Runner #24420″. 

At 5:00 pm on Wednesday, April 10, age 36, Andrew could no longer fight. Kristen’s baby brother had passed away, leaving Kristen to face one of the most challenging times of her life.

Could Kristen make it up her own Heartbreak Hill? Would she still run?

If anyone had a doubt, Runner #24420 answers by quoting Andrew’s favorite song, “Move Along” by the All American Rejects. “When all you have to keep is strong, move along move along like I know you’ll do. And even when your hope is gone, move along move along just to make it through.”

That in a nutshell is the Boston Marathon.

Two hours after the first finisher of the marathon is when the largest wave of finishers – finish.  Yesterday’s best time was 2 hours and 10 minutes run by Lelisa Desisa of Ethopia. The bombs went off exactly 2 hours later. Their targets were runners like runner 24420 and their families and friends. Their targets were runners in my running club, ordinary people who train for years to take a victory lap on Boylston Street, and their families and friends.

Kevin McNeil is a friend. He and his family are veterans of the Boston Marathon. His wife is an outstanding runner. His words are better than mine:

The spectators come to witness and celebrate the very best that humans can endeavor to achieve, this challenging of the self (often done in the name of charity or in the memory of the dearly departed); and they do it to provide the psychic energy that may be required for a lot of these runners to be able to finish. And to feed off that incredible strength of will in return. Ask any marathoner or attendee. Boston is different.

I don’t know who did this. I don’t know if Patriots Day was chosen for its symbolism or simply because the finish line provided the greatest concentration of human targets. But I do know this: on Patriots Day, this town simultaneously gives and receives the best that humanity has to offer, and no single madman can silence or defeat this inherent goodness that we are all privileged to share with one another. kevinmcneil.net

The reactions from my running friends echo Kevin’s words. Their resolve to run Boston has been strengthened. Ultimately it is about “giving and receiving the best that humanity has to offer”.

Click here to view the embedded video.

“One” is my word for 2013.

One New Years day, I resolved to run at least one mile each day. Yesterday was the 100th day that I’ve put on my running shoes and ran at least one mile.

Running one mile every day changes my life. Running one mile is easy. I can run a mile in 6 minutes. Faster than that if I want to push things. I’ve been running for 4 years. In that time, I’ve run 3 marathons, numerous half marathons, and run thousands of miles along the way.

Yet finding the time and energy to run a mile each day is the greatest challenge that I’ve set for myself as a runner. There are days that I don’t want to run. Days that I’m tired. Days that I have other work to do. Days that I think my legs could use a rest. Days where I’d rather do something else like watch TV or go to sleep. Days when it’s cold. Days when I don’t feel well. Days where I’d rather be at the dentist than on the treadmill.

And that’s the point.

Founding FreedMcKeen has taken all of my energy and effort. After last years Hartford Marathon, I found myself running a lot less. Some of that can be attributed to recovery. I was hurt heading into the marathon, hurt during it, and hurt after it. Taking time to heal is smart.

The injury that I suffered was caused by imbalance. Roads are graded to allow water to flow off them. The middle of the road sits higher than the side of the road. I’d run thousands of miles against traffic. My right leg was striking the road differently than my left leg. The imbalance resulted in pain in my IT band. I didn’t realize the cause until a therapist asked if I always ran against traffic. This was in March of this year.

She told me to switch things up and run with traffic. I’ve started doing this where safe to do so. It has made all the difference.

In December, I realized there was imbalance with my work life. Finding your footing when starting a law firm is hard. Very hard. My life used to have structure. I basically worked the same hours every week. I got the same paycheck. I had the same amount of vacation. In founding FreedMcKeen, I quickly found myself with none of those things. I was lost. I was losing running. There was always something else that I needed to do.  There was imbalance.

Running one mile each day helps me achieve balance in my professional life. It’s how I’m finding my footing.

I’m going to write more on the power of “One” and how I’m incorporating it into my practice. There’s time for that later because I have to run.

]]> http://aconnecticutlawblog.com/2013/04/one/feed/ 1 http://aconnecticutlawblog.com/2013/03/march-madness-the-same-sex-marriage-edition/ http://aconnecticutlawblog.com/2013/03/march-madness-the-same-sex-marriage-edition/#comments Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:00:12 +0000 Meghan Freed http://aconnecticutlawblog.com/?p=4508 One of the things I miss about working in a large law firm is a robust and festive March Madness pool.  (Remembering that the last time I was in a large Connecticut firm, the UConn men were contenders with fewer academic “struggles.”  The UConn women, of course, were as outstanding both on the court and in the classroom back then as they are now.)

So what does the NCAA tournament have to do with same sex marriage?  Well, this morning the United States Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Hollingsworth v. Perry, in which the Plaintiffs’ say Proposition 8, California’s ban on same sex marriage, violates the United States’ Constitution’s equal protection guarantee.

Folks have turned the Court’s possible decisions on both Hollingsworth and United States v. Windsor, the DOMA case in front of the Court tomorrow, into diagnostic keys of the possible outcomes. Some of our favorites are from the New York Times and Third Way.

Kristen, who is more clever than I by half, had the inspired suggestion that we turn these into NCAA-style brackets.  We’re hoping some friendly competition will be distracting while we wait for the decisions.

]]> http://aconnecticutlawblog.com/2013/03/march-madness-the-same-sex-marriage-edition/feed/ 1 http://aconnecticutlawblog.com/2013/03/love-and-taxes/ http://aconnecticutlawblog.com/2013/03/love-and-taxes/#comments Sun, 24 Mar 2013 12:44:35 +0000 Meghan Freed http://aconnecticutlawblog.com/?p=4502 As readers of A Connecticut Law Blog and followers of Freed McKeen’s Facebook page are well aware, this week the United States Supreme Court is set to hear arguments of two landmark cases impacting the rights of same sex couples in America — Hollingsworth v. Perry on Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage initiative in California, and Windsor v. United States on the federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”).

As I discussed on Colin McEnroe’s show on WNPR about divorce this month, the Court’s ruling on Proposition 8 has sweeping implications for same sex couples’ constitutional rights.

The Court’s ruling on DOMA could have sweeping implications on their wallets.

As a result, it may make sense for same sex married couples to file a “protected claim amended return” along with their taxes this year.

Here’s why:

Section 3 of DOMA is the portion of the federal law that declares marriage to be only between a man and a woman.  As a result, the federal government denies benefits to same-sex couples that are commonplace for heterosexual couples, like insurance for government workers’  and benefits for Social Security survivors’.  And, as is particularly timely given April 15′s  rapid approach, the IRS does not recognize same sex couple’s legal marriages.  So, a Connecticut married couple who happens to be same sex must file individual federal tax returns.

The financial implications of the unequal treatment can be significant.  For example, thanks to DOMA, Edith Windsor, the (fantastic, read about her) plaintiff in Windsor, was not treated as a surviving spouse when her wife, Thea Spyer, passed away in 2009.  Under the tax code, the marital deduction allows an unlimited deduction from estate and gift tax that postpones the tax on assets inherited from each other until the second spouse dies.  As long as you’re straight.  Ms. Windsor, rather than be entitled to the unlimited deduction, paid more than $600,000 in state and federal estate taxes.

DOMA can have a major impact on same sex couples’ annual tax returns, too.  According to an analysis by H&R Block, same sex couples can pay as much as $6,000 more a year than married opposite sex couples.

If the Supreme Court rules DOMA unconstitutional, the IRS will treat same sex married folks just like all other married folks.  But, starting when?  If you find that filing jointly will be a benefit to you, how many years of tax returns can you amend to reflect the change in the law?

Generally, the IRS will allow taxpayers to amend their tax returns for the prior three years.  Since it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will issue its decision on DOMA before April 15, same sex couples will have to file separate federal return for 2013.

And, since the ability to file an amended return for tax year for 2009 also closes on April 15, 2013, in order to maximize the number of years that they are entitled to, couples for whom this ruling would make a difference need to file by that date what is known as a “protective claim amended return,” for 2009.  This serves to alert the IRS that they want to file as married if DOMA is overturned and preserves their right to file an amended 2009 return in addition to 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013.

And then, we wait and watch the Supreme Court.

Same sex marriage is not yet legal in Illinois, the House has not yet voted and sufficient votes are said to be lacking.  Still, though, what a lovely day for the State’s senate to choose to do the right thing.

Illinois wasn’t the only state for all lovers yesterday.  Minnesotans, who voted to defeat an amendment banning gay marriage to their state constitution in 2012, rallied in support of marriage equality yesterday for Valentine’s Day.

New England’s one marriage equality hold-out, our neighbor Rhode Island, passed marriage equality “handily” in their House o f Representatives in January.  The State’s  Senate has not yet acted, which Rhode Island’s Republican-turned-independent Governor Lincoln Chaffee has said jeopardizes his State’s economy, stating:

We are in intense competition with Connecticut, New York and Massachusetts.  We are all in the same economy. We have to have the same welcome mat at our door that our neighbors have.

It seems that love is big business.

We wish our friends and family a healthy and happy day, with whomever they choose to make their Valentines.

Engagement Ring

I’ve never posted a full case opinion on this blog before.  Opinions usually lack appeal to a general audience. It’s why lawyers are paid to read them. But the case of White v. Finch is worth the read on this Valentine’s Day:

This is an action in which the plaintiff seeks to recover from the defendant the sum of $515.91, alleged to be the value of an engagement ring which, the engagement broken, the defendant has refused to return.

This is a case in which the credibility of the witnesses has greatly influenced the decision of the court. Pagano v. Mitchell, 9 Conn.Sup. 329. The parties joined in some very spirited issues of veracity. Juliano v. Latella, 12 Conn.Sup. 471.

In October, 1962, the plaintiff, then a teacher in the public school and a church organist in the town of Clinton, met the defendant. Going out together, they developed a mutual fondness, one for the other, and, before Christmas, 1962, the plaintiff proposed marriage to the defendant. More unready then unwilling, the defendant demurred, claiming that she wanted time ‘to think it over.’ On February 13, 1963, appropriately the day preceding Valentine’s Day, the proposal was renewed and accepted. One week thereafter the engagement ring, subject of this action, was given to the defendant by the plaintiff. The engagement was not announced publicly immediately. This is important only in that the defendant’s failure to take immediate action to relay the joyous information to the would became a bone of contention between the parties.

There were other problems. The previous constant companionship became infrequent meetings. The plaintiff, a ski enthusiast, sought out the snowcapped hills, leaving the defendant, uninvited, alone in Clinton. The plaintiff, a forceful man, announced to his immediate friends that the wedding was to be in August, although his bride-to-be had not as yet set the date. This no more pleased her than did his gift of a book of etiquette, ‘so that she might plan the wedding correctly,’ but their status as an engaged couple remained the same.

The climax came in the summer of 1963, coincidentally with the tercentencary celebration of the founding of the town of Clinton. Among the planned festivities, there was to be a beauty contest which the defendant had been asked to enter, representing her mother’s garden club. To this the plaintiff had multiple objections, the most cogent of which was that he was, as he stated, to be a judge in the contest. The ethical argument won out, and the defendant withdrew, attending the contest as an observer. The plaintiff, far from being a judge, was not even there. He had gone to the defendant’s home and, not finding her there, suspected the worst.

However unfounded were these suspicions, they remained with the plaintiff until the next day, when the defendant came to the plaintiff’s lodging to seek the return of a punchbowl given them as an engagement present. The purpose of the quest was innocuous. She wanted to use it. The plaintiff at first refused to return it, saying that it had been given to them for their home and there was to be no home. Then followed his statement, ‘As far as I am concerned, this engagement is through.’ The following day the defendant returned to the plaintiff all gifts given her by him. She did not return the engagement ring. Subsequently, an announcement was made in the newspaper, at the defendant’s bidding, that the engagement had been terminated ‘by mutual consent.’

The question whether the engagement was broken by one of the parties or terminated by mutual consent cannot be determined by a newspaper article, calculated to preserve the dignity of both parties as far as the rest of the world was concerned. The defendant could have done little else.

Whether the defendant would have retreated from the engagement before the plaintiff said the fateful words is not in issue. Whatever words were spoken and whatever action was taken to terminate the engagement were spoken and taken by the plaintiff.

The question as to the ownership of the engagement ring is unique in this jurisdiction. Whether Connecticut people are quick to adjust such problems without adjudication or unwilling to publicize them is not quite clear. Others in other jurisdictions have not been so shy. The Roman Law provided for the return of betrothal gifts when the parties mutually dissolved the contract and for forfeiture by the party at fault when the repudiation was unjustified. Fryer, Readings on Personal Property (3d Ed.) p. 957. The prevailing view in the United States and England follows the Roman Law in placing weight upon the fault of the parties. Hence, it has been held that where an engagement is broken owing to the fault of the donor, he may not recover the ring. Schultz v. Duitz, 253 Ky. 135, 69 S.W.2d 27, 92 A.L.R. 600; Beck v. Cohen, 237 App.Div. 729, 262 N.Y.S. 716; Beer v. Hart, 153 Misc. 277, 274 N.Y.S. 671. The decisions are based upon the theory that the ring is given upon an implied condition that the marriage will take place. The law construes a promise of marriage generally to be a promise to marry on request. Clark v. Pendleton, 20 Conn. 495, 505. Seldom are such contracts expressed in very definite language, and they are not improperly or infrequently inferred as much from the conduct of the parties toward each other as from any direct evidence of expressed stipulations. Waters v. Bristol, 26 Conn. 398, 405.

A breach of an executory contract by anticipation occurs only when there is a distinct, unequivocal and absolute refusal to perform. The renunciation must be so distinct that its purpose is manifest and so absolute that the intention to no longer abide by the terms of the contract is beyond question. Wonalancet Co. v. Banfield, 116 Conn. 582, 586, 165 A. 785; Wells v. Hartford Manila Co., 76 Conn. 27, 35, 55 A. 599. No words could have been more distinct, more unequivocal than the plaintiff’s: ‘As far as I am concerned, the engagement is through.’ There was, indeed, a breach of the promise to marry, but it came about through the actions and words of the plaintiff.

It is well settled that the party who has initiated the action and who seeks a judgment in his favor must prove that which he alleges, if he would prevail. Stevens v. Smoker, 84 Conn. 569, 572, 80 A. 788; Lockwood v. Lockwood, 80 Conn. 513, 521, 69 A. 8. This burden of proof the plaintiff has not sustained.

It would be academic to discuss the question of damages here.

For the reasons above stated, the issues are found for the defendant.

Accordingly, judgment may enter for the defendant, who may receive her costs.

Nemo!

Digging out from Storm Nemo? Is your road plowed?

One of the things you may consider doing is writing a letter to your selectman.  Connecticut is the land of arcane laws. Perhaps none as arcane as Conn. Gen. Stat. § 13a-107 which reads as follows:

Whenever any highway becomes blocked with snow to an extent that renders the same impassable for public travel, the selectmen of the town in which such highway is located shall cause such highway to be opened for public travel at the expense of such town within a reasonable time thereafter, if they find the same to be required for public convenience and necessity. Any selectman who fails to open any highway so blocked, when requested in writing so to do by six taxpayers residing on or near such highway, shall be fined ten dollars. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 13a-107.

The law was enacted in June of 1963 and the penalty of a $10 fine remains in place. As does the requirement that six or more taxpayers request in writing that snow be removed from their road. Which is strange. The law was enacted before email. If a road is impassable, how is a person to write to his selectman?

If your road is impassable consider finding six of your neighbors to write to your selectman asking him to clear the road. I’m sure he’ll be motivated to avoid a whopping $10 fine.

The first time Meghan and I experienced how difficult starting a law firm is happened in a bank. Actually it happened in a bank for four and a half hours. And then in another bank for another four hours.

Our first bank gave us a Real Estate Brokers Account. We are not real estate brokers. They also promised that checks were free. They then charged us $100 from checks and took the money out of our IOLTA account (which didn’t have any money in it). This caused the IOLTA account to be overdrawn. At 5:30 on a Friday morning I was sending an email to the Statewide Grievance Committee explaining what had happened. After several phone calls with the bank, they corrected their mistake. We switched banks a month later.

Dealing with banks taught us the first law of managing a firm: Everything takes forever.

Welcome to Bankland.

Pregame:

If you are starting a firm you’ll likely decide to form some sort of liability limiting entity (pick’em: LLC, LLP, PC. S-Corp). Before you can obtain a bank account for your entity you must first create the entity and properly register it with the Secretary of State. Then you must obtain a federal tax identification number from the IRS. You will need both of those things prior to walking into a bank.

You’re also going to need a firm juris number. You must get that number from the Statewide Grievance Committee.

Getting what you need to open your bank accounts can easily take two weeks. Plan for this.

Gametime:

First you’re going to need to bring money to the bank. Banks have minimum deposits required to open accounts. Find out what that amount is and make sure you have it. Also make sure you have at least two forms of identification (e.g. driver’s license and passport) and a certified copy of your articles of organization.

At a minimum you are going to need two accounts. Your first account is your operating account. The second account is your client’s trust account (IOLTA). You should get different colored checks for each account. One cannot violate the first rule of attorney ethics: Thy client’s funds account is sacred. You can’t violate that by mistake. You can’t violate that even for one second.

On the advise of a very wise law firm bookkeeper, we optedy for a second IOLTA account. We use our second IOLTA account solely for real estate transactions. In real estate transactions, large amounts of money come into the account for very brief periods of time. Having a second account solely for real estate makes reconciling our normal IOLTA account easier. We use green checks for our real estate trust account. Green for grass. The kind you mow.

Extra Points:

Strongly consider getting a credit card with a small limit. Our bank was willing to open small credit accounts in the name of our business. We use these cards to pay all of our monthly subscriptions and for firm expenses. It is an accounting efficiency for us. We look at our credit card statements and then make entries into quickbooks. This allows us to write one check a month for the majority of our expenses.

A small limit will also help you live within your means.  Early in your business life cycle it may be tempting to lean on the card heavily. A small limit on a credit card that you can pay off every month is perfect. You can also earn points.

We love our mobile banking. We’re able to deposit checks to our operating accounts directly from our phones. This saves us trips to the bank. Really investigate your bank’s mobile and online features. Depositing checks without having to go to a bank saves time.

Post Game Analysis: 

Your bank, your bank accounts, and the ways in which you interact with your bank are critical to your existence as a law firm. Ask lawyers in your area what bank they use and if they are happy with their bank.

And plan to be in the bank for four hours. And if you are forming a partnership – it’s likely all of the partners must be at the bank – likely for four hours. That’s after it’s taken you two weeks to form your entity, get your tax id, and obtain a firm juris number.

____________________

FreedMcKeen is a Hartford law firm that litigates difficult cases, closes real estate deals, and serves as trusted advisors to individuals and small businesses.

image from wikipedia

Rebecca Lobo on her brother Jason’s nomination to the Superior Court Bench.  ”Will need custom-made robes” – remarked Ms. Lobo in response to one of my tweets.

I’ve stood next to Jason in court on several occasions. My best estimate is he is twice as tall as me. He’ll make a fantastic judge and will most certainly need custom-made robes.