Posted on June 17, 2009 by Beverley Rogers

When MYOB becomes NIMBY

There’s been a lot of chatter around Ridgefield lately regarding the possibility of “light and blight” ordinances. The sides of the issue seem to be split between those who believe that the government has no right to interfere with one’s private property, and those who argue that neighbors are obliged to keep their residences and outdoor lighting in respectable condition.


The catalyst for the potential blight law seems to derive from two recent cases. One involves recent reports of property owners who were ordered to serve 100 hours of community service for violation of zoning and health codes. The second case involves a reported dispute between neighbors over whether one intentionally points lights directly into the windows of the other.


According to the Ridgefield Press, Ridgefield Selectwoman Di Masters says a blight ordinance could be a trigger to get people the help they need if they are struggling to maintain their property. Also according to the Press, Town Selectman Rudy Marconi, after receiving numerous calls from residents, said the town “may need to consider a blight ordinance with very strict, specific language that would stop a homeowner from bringing down the property value of other homes.”


A Ridgefield Press editorial suggests these provocative issues, which presumably face every town, are no more than heated disputes between neighbors and can be resolved with existing legal remedies. Since this is not a political blog, we do not take positions on pending legislation. We can comment, however, on the neighborly dispute aspect - - what remedies are there for neighbors involved in disputes of this general type?


First, there is a specific statute in Connecticut which permits a land owner to sue the owner of adjacent property who “maliciously” erects a structure to annoy or injure. This statute, obviously, may apply to some types of annoyances but not to others - - for example, a vicious dog is not a structure.


Then, there is the law of private nuisance which also permits a landowner to sue a neighbor and may, in some circumstances, take into account a decline in property value when calculating damages. Despite the frequent appearance of private nuisance actions in court, the law does not uniformly describe the elements of a “nuisance.” Furthermore, the law is not one-sided. Consideration must be given to the rights of both parties in the dispute. The law recognizes that in modern society some level of neighborly “interference” is inherent.


Of course, before resorting to private lawsuits, neighbors will want to take into account the expense  of private litigation, not to mention the lingering animosity that often results. Town legislators will generally consider whether or not the public interest is involved, in which case they may determine that private remedies are not enough and government enforcement powers must be invoked.
 

I’m sure this is a discussion that will be around for some time.

 

Image: From Wikimedia Commons: The Hatfeld Clan of the Hatfield-McCoy Feud; taken in 1897.

 

 


 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted on June 17, 2009 by Angelo Tartaro

Measure Carefully

Within the “Musings” category of our Blog, I am allowed, on occasion, to go completely off-topic. It’s our way of providing the seasoning that makes for a tastier soup.

An unfortunate report of telephone troubles at the Ridgefield Library severe enough to be covered by RidgefieldPress.com reminded me of my recent adventure with a service provider that shall remain nameless. The adventure involved a much less severe problem, to be sure, but the story is amusing.

We had a technical issue. The way you resolve a technical issue is to open a “trouble ticket” with the service provider’s customer support department. Trouble tickets, I was assured, would be closed within one business day.

After the first trouble ticket, I received no feedback but my own testing told me the problem persisted.

After the second trouble ticket, I received a robotic telephone message that the ticket had been closed. But, my testing revealed the problem still persisted.

After the third trouble ticket, I talked to a human who assured me that the problem could not be solved and that we would have to live with the situation.


A few weeks later, while ruminating on my own, it occurred to me that the manipulation of a parameter that we (the customers) control (a suggestion never made by the service provider) might solve the problem. And, it did.

The measure of customer service according to the service provider (closed trouble tickets within one business day): 100%. Customer service according to the customer (me): 0%.


 Image: Wikimedia Commons: “At the Telephone” 1906 sheet music cover of “Blanche Ring’s Telephone Song.”

Tags:
Posted on June 11, 2009 by Beverley Rogers

Use It, Move It, or Lose It: Protecting Your Property Line

The Ridgefield Press recently reported about the Land Conservancy of Ridgefield’s new “Good Neighbor” policy. In general, the program asks neighbors who abut preserved lands to keep track of encroachments, such as dumping leaves or paving driveways. Encroachments hinder the Conservancy’s mission to keep land in its natural state.

This gives me the opportunity to discuss one of my favorite topics, adverse possession.

Many of our clients have mistakenly believed that adverse possession is an ancient and arcane concept, when in fact it comes up all the time, both in Connecticut and New York. Town governments using land for governmental purposes are basically immune but private landowners are not. For private landowners, encroachments could mean the risk of losing part of their land through adverse possession. Over time, 15 years in Connecticut (10 in New York), encroachments can ripen into ownership rights and the original private landowner can lose a portion (or all) of his land.   

All landowners should take a tip from the Conservancy and follow their own good neighbor policy: be aware of property lines, observe any encroachments, and deal with them appropriately but promptly.

We would like to express our thanks to the Conservancy for performing an important, valuable and essential service. We all benefit from the preservation of land in its natural state.

Need more information about adverse possession? Click here:

 Image: Pierrepont Pond, Ridgefield, CT..

 

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted on May 27, 2009 by Beverley Rogers

A New Lease on (Your Business) Life

According to a recent  Wall Street Journal blog, vacancy rates at malls and shopping centers in the top U.S. markets have climbed to their highest rates of this decade: 7.9% for malls and 9.5% for smaller, open-air shopping centers.


In today’s challenging economy, many struggling retailers – and residents – are approaching their landlords and asking for financial assistance or a reduction in their monthly rental payments. This practice, once considered a drastic measure, has actually become very commonplace.


Contrary to appearances, the parties are not on opposing sides. Both have the same goal: to keep the renter in business so he can continue to pay the rent. Facing a potentially long recession, it benefits both parties to come to an understanding in these situations.


Retail vacancies are on the rise, even in our own town of Ridgefield. If landlords and tenants come to an agreement, the lessee can continue to run his business, and the landlord continues to have a paying tenant. Of course, the terms of the negotiations should be agreed upon beforehand and clearly spelled out. It is also beneficial to have an attorney present to mediate or help resolve any potential conflicts.


Retail property owners that consent to abatement are putting their own financial future at risk. They also need to thoroughly analyze which of their tenants is deserving of the break; in other words, who is likely to succeed?


Tenants and renters cannot take a “hardball” approach to the situation, despite its frequency in these economic times. They should be willing to make concessions, put limits on the agreements and fully cooperate with the landlord. 

Image: New co-working reception area, Executive Pavilion, Ridgefield

 

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted on May 8, 2009 by Beverley Rogers

Welcome

Welcome to the new Rogers & Tartaro blog.  Our blog has been evolving into this final new site that we’re excited to unveil. 

In addition to traditional business and employment law issues, we’ll be focusing on several other subjects, including issues and regulations that affect our own town of Ridgefield and beyond.

Below is an explanation of our revised name, along with a brief summary of the types of posts you might find here.

 Main Street – (1) in contemporary usage, “Main Street” has come to mean “not Wall Street.” (2) “Main Street” is associated with small towns, and Ridgefield, the location of our main office, deals with small town issues. (3) Our office is actually located on Main Street.

 “And Beyond” –While we are focused locally, issues of interest in any community always include broader subjects along with the local ones. In addition to Connecticut, our practice has represented clients in the courts of New York, Arizona, Maryland, New Jersey Massachusetts, Georgia, Texas and even South America and Europe.

 Law and Business –As attorneys, our blog is a legal blog, but we are also small business owners. Our posts will address issues relevant to local businesses, small to mid-sized organizations, and not-for-profits.

 Litigation/Disputes –Our posts will comment and educate about interesting litigation issues, but also reflect the broader mandate of our practice: a reasonable, economical resolution of a dispute.

 Economics 101 – “I am not an Economist but I play one on my blog.” Along with my law degree, I have a graduate degree in business, so we will comment on economic issues.

 We look forward to your comments and input.

 Images: Top left, Cass Gilbert Fountain, a Ridgefield, Ct landmark.  Side, right, Downtown White Plains, NY.  Both images from City-data.com.  Images on this post were modified after first published.  Our offices are in Ridgefield and White Plains. 

Tags:
Posted on April 30, 2009 by Beverley Rogers

Order In The Court Rules

There is no lack of dizzying rules in our court system. Of course, these time-honored regulations serve a great and effective purpose, but nevertheless, sometimes it’s fun to point some of them out.

Today, we will pick on the Connecticut Superior Court and discuss its rules about “venue” for civil cases. Venue refers to the specific court location where your case is to be heard. Civil means “not criminal.”

Suppose you are sued and your adversary selected the wrong location (i.e., they are making you go to Stamford but the correct location is Danbury). A rule says that you have a limited period of time to make a motion to dismiss. The rule seems drastic since “dismissed” seems pretty final. Actually, court decisions have firmly established that the case is never to be dismissed; it is simply moved to the correct venue. Got that? You make a motion to dismiss but never expect the case to be dismissed.

And, what if you don’t make your motion in time? No problem. A different rule gives the court discretion to move the case anyway. So, just ask. However, when you ask, refer to a different rule and don’t make a motion to dismiss. Got that? A motion to dismiss is required… but not really.

Oh and by the way, “dismissed” may not be all that final. Some dismissals are “without prejudice” which means you can take another shot.

However, there is a serious underlying policy behind these rules. Our courts (and this applies to just about any jurisdiction, not just Connecticut) prefer to resolve cases on their merits, whenever possible, and not on procedural issues, like the choice of location. For example, in Connecticut, the stated policy is that the rules of venue for civil cases are intended to provide convenience to the parties

For the lawyers who may want to check me out, send an e-mail or use the Comments facility of this blog and I’ll provide a few citations.

Image: From Wikipedia Commons, State Superior Courthouse, built 1784, at head of State Street, New London, CT.

Continue Reading...
Tags:
Posted on April 30, 2009 by Beverley Rogers

Severance Dispute? Have a Lawyer on Your Side

The Ridgefield area has unfortunately not been immune to the recession, and our office has seen an increase in requests for consultations from employees working in either Connecticut or New York who have been laid off and believe their employers did not appropriately respect their rights.

 Fortunately, several of these disputes are successfully resolved with just a letter. It’s great for the employee and, actually, great for the employer too. Who needs protracted disputes while trying to survive in a tough economy?

 But, to those who are thinking of dispensing with legal advice and writing your own letters, “Don’t try this at home.” When there is a potential dispute, it’s imperative to get both the content and tone right, and that takes expertise. Threats of legal action rarely intimidate a party who has access to competent counsel. What’s even worse is making empty or ill-informed threats about non-existent rights that go nowhere.

 Really good “lawyer letters” do not threaten. A good letter educates the reader as to the specific nature of the rights being asserted on behalf of the client. The tone, whether conciliatory or firm, must always convey a professional respect for the other side and a willingness to work to resolve the issues.

 Sometimes, it can be done with a short letter. Sometimes circumstances require a detailed description of the facts. And, sometimes it works… really well.

 

Tags: ,
Posted on April 30, 2009 by Beverley Rogers

Cultural Initiatives Help Local Businesses

For a small Connecticut town, Ridgefield has an impressive number of cultural resources.  Unfortunately, however, the economic downturn is having an impact on our local arts.  Sponsorship for non-profits like The Ridgefield Playhouse and CHIRP summer concerts has declined, and the future of many programs is at risk.

These organizations are not just sitting idly by, however.  In addition to aggressively campaigning for sponsorships, groups are getting creative.  

After receiving notice of a grant from the Connecticut Commission on Culture and Tourism, the Aldrich Museum has teamed up with the Ridgefield Playhouse to create the “Look. Listen. Stay.” campaign. The initiative will entice visitors to Ridgefield by offering discounts on special cultural programs, restaurants and stays at local inns.  “Look. Listen. Stay.” will run four times, once per month, launching on May 15. The Chamber of Commerce is also participating in the campaign by soliciting its members to offer incentives as part of the package. 

Many of these businesses compete against one another but recognize that cooperation is a stronger tool. Spirited competition and neighboring businesses working together both help vitalize a community. 

Image: Crowd at dusk in front of Aldrich Museum of Contemporary Art.

 

Tags: , ,
Posted on April 15, 2009 by Angelo Tartaro

CELB Points to Valuable COBRA & Other Employment Resources

The recession has understandably caused a significant increase in the number of people, in Ridgefield and beyond, seeking counsel about employment-related issues, especially severance agreements and COBRA.

COBRA, of course, is the program that mandates that certain discontinuing employees be offered the opportunity to continue health insurance coverage for a limited period of time. Recent changes in COBRA premium subsidies have been enacted as part of the federal economic stimulus program.

I’ve found some interesting information in the Connecticut Employment Law Blog (CELB), one of my favorite sites. Recent CELB posts offer valuable online resources, primarily for employers but also for employees and other lawyers (like us) who counsel individuals and smaller employers.

Two recent posts on CELB discuss: (1) the penalties and other reasons why employers may want to get active in planning for changes to COBRA: Sounding the Alarm Bells: Three Reasons Why Most Employers Should Get Their Act Together on the COBRA Subsidy Provisions; and (2) resources to help employers meet the April 18, 2009, deadline to provide certain notices: COBRA Changes Are Here: Do You Have An Action Plan?

An earlier post pointed to online sites with general information about employment law, including sites featuring an “employee-oriented” perspective: Looking for Other Employment Law Resources? Look Up The "Top 100" Employment Law Blogs.

A still earlier post featured and pointed to resources available online from the Connecticut Department of Labor: Four for...General HR Knowledge for Employers from the Connecticut Department of Labor. These include discussions of federal and state Family Medical Leave Acts, an updated FAQ: site, a site to obtain posters and guide books and an “Employer’s Guide to Unemployment Compensation.”

Links available on the CELB posts take you right to the resources being discussed.

My thanks to Attorney Daniel Schwartz, author of CELB, for alerting us to these valuable resources.

Tags:
Posted on April 15, 2009 by Angelo Tartaro

Ridgefield Chamber Plans New Initiatives

At a recent meeting of the Ridgefield Rotary Club, I had the opportunity to hear Marion Roth, Executive director of the Chamber of Commerce, speak about some of the new initiatives she and the Chamber’s Board have been working on. Her general goal is to develop a sense of cooperation among the agencies and organizations concerned with economic development, including the Chamber, the Town’s Economic Development Commission and private groups like the Chamber itself and Downtown Ridgefield. One of the Chamber’s most interesting initiatives involves leveraging cultural resources to make Ridgefield a destination for the arts, theatre, restaurants and inns.  The "Look.  Listen.  Stay." initiative will be inaugurated in May, and will coincide with several local events.

These are exciting plans. I regret that for now I can only touch the surface because there is much more to learn about these initiatives and the people, along with Marion, making things happen. Our firm is a member and we’ve supported its past activities (partner Bev, a long time resident, being actively involved). I hope to cover the progress of the new initiatives and report on future developments in greater depth.

Tags: