As our legislature is considering allowing liquor sales on Sunday they may also want to consider the following insanity:

I love those new light bulbs, you know, the spiral kind.  Their packaging tells me that I can save $120 a year or something if I replace my old fashioned light bulbs. Having changed out my bulbs – they’re not kidding, I do save money on my monthly electric bill.

The problem is to save that money, I must first spend money on new bulbs.  If I didn’t have any money, I’d be stuck with my old bulbs which would cost me more money each month and I’d be poorer because of it.

Cool New Light Bulb

The Hartford Courant does near weekly articles on how much our probate courts cost and how they’re nearly bankrupt.

One of the reasons probate courts operate at a deficit is conservatorships. If a person doesn’t have money the court appoints an attorney for the proposed conserved person and pays that attorney at a rate of $50 an hour. If the person is conserved, the court also pays a conservator $50 an hour to manage that person’s affairs.

One of the most effective ways to prevent a conservatorship proceeding is to execute a living will and power of attorney.  People often end up conserved because for one reason or another they fail to do any advanced planning.

Sometimes perceived cost is a reason people don’t see an attorney to do a living will or a power of attorney. 

Consequently, our state pays more for conservatorships because people don’t do advanced planning.

It’s like we’re running our state on old light bulbs. 

What the legislature should consider is a tax credit on legal fees for people who do some advanced planning. 

What the legislature is doing is considering a tax on legal services and raising the attorney occupational tax – both of which will result in a higher cost of legal services for residents of Connecticut.

Raising the cost of legal services for the middle class is about as short sighted as the state deciding to raise taxes on those cool new light bulbs.

I’ve written about lemons before and Attorney Sergei Lemberg writes about them all the time.

If you’re a long time reader then you know my dog Brady. I adopted Brady from the Hartford Pound as a puppy. Dogs at the pound are given 8 days to be adopted or be put to sleep. Click here for a list of pets available at the Hartford Animal Shelter.

Brady is many things.

She is loving, kind, and a good pet.

She’s also a lemon. 

Within months of owning her, Brady had to have major hip surgery. The surgery was needed so that she can walk. Her condition was no fault of Hartford Animal Control.

The legislature is considering protection for residents who purchase a dog or cat from a breeder or a pet store. The proposed law would seek to ensure that cats and dogs sold in Connecticut are healthy at the time of purchase and not subject to inhumane conditions. Check out the text of the bill here.

I’ll take back what I wrote earlier. In no sense is Brady a lemon. She’s lemonade.

Here are some of the statutes that Governor Rell seeks to repeal:

* A law that makes it clear that a person cannot defend any action on the grounds that it was made on a Sunday. Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 52-207.

*A statute that requires the approval of ink by the Public Records Administrator used on state records. Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 1-10.

*An act making it a crime to refuse to relinquish a party line when informed that such line is needed for an emergency call. Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 53-210.

What’s interesting is that Governor Rell is not seeking to repeal one of the laws that could really save the state some coin.

According to the article, Governor Rell is proposing lifting the mandatory 18 percent penalty charged to property owners who are late on payment of their taxes. The theory being that this would provide municipalities much needed cash.

My question is what happens to lien holders who are not the municipality?

Towns across Connecticut sell property tax liens to private investors at auction.

A purchaser of municipal tax  liens ”steps into the shoes” of the town having all of the same rights as the town - including the right to 18% interest per year. Further, a purchaser of those liens can take possession of the property through the initiation of a foreclosure action.

Would legislation providing amnesty on municipal tax liens would amnesty apply to property owners whose liens have been sold to private parties?

If the legislature gives amnesty who are delinquent on their property taxes then it will be taking from those who purchased the liens expecting a return on their investment.

On the other hand, if the legislature only applies amnesty to liens held by municipalities then only some property owners would receive amnesty while others would still have to pay interest at a rate of 18% per year.

It will be interesting to see how the legislature sorts out this issue.