One of the best things about having this site is that I’m constantly learning things. All sorts of things. Below is an email sent to me by a lawyer who wishes to remain anonymous. I’ve slightly edited his email and with his permission, turned it into a post. Enjoy:
“I enjoy your Connecticut law blog very much. One thing, though, bothers me as a lawyer: Your use of the word ‘presently,’ as in this sentence:
This comes at a time when foreclosures and seriously delinquent home loans in Connecticut jumped more than a full percentage point in the last quarter of 2009. Connecticut’s foreclosure problems are presently getting worse.
When I was trained as a lawyer in the 1970s, a senior partner told me if I ever used ‘presently’ in a contract to convey the concept of ‘currently,’ ‘at present’ or ‘now,’ he would beat me with a stick. This is because ‘presently’ inherently is ambiguous.
Its historical meaning is ‘in the near future’ as in ‘I will attend to your needs presently, Watson.’ In modern American usage, a different meaning has been creeping in, as your blog entry shows.
You are not alone in using ‘presently’ as a synonym for ‘currently;’ indeed, you are quite modern. But you may be creating ambiguity out there and, certainly, you are adding a discordant note in an otherwise flawless score, at least to this blog reader.
P.S. I saw with amusement in one of your earlier postings that at least one Connecticut court also misused ‘presently.'”
See here:
What are the requirements for a valid marriage ceremony in Connecticut?
1. The physical presence of the parties before an official licensed to perform a marriage ceremony in Connecticut; and 2. A third party official must witness or officiate at a ceremony herein the parties each presently consent to marriage. Hames v. Hames, 163 Conn. 588 (1972).
So, the ambiguity I reference above might have interesting — and absurd — consequences in the context of Connecticut marriage.