House Bill 5885 - Is Connecticut’s Conveyance Tax Increase Temporary?
The temporary fix to Connecticut’s financial problems may continue to be supplemented by the increased conveyance tax for both the State and local municipalities. A conveyance tax is imposed and collected based upon the sales price of the real property being sold. In Connecticut the conveyance tax is customarily paid by the seller at the time of the sale.
The increase in the conveyance tax was supposed to expire (sunset) July 1, 2007. A sunset gives lawmakers a chance to review laws and then after its review decide to continue them or not. Apparently, this increase shall not expire but continue for at least two more years at this rate.
If you are selling your home at a loss you may have to bring money to the closing table to pay this conveyance tax in addition to the other fees associated with the closing, including real estate commissions, attorneys fees etc. Conversely, a bank that acquires a property through the foreclosure process does not pay a conveyance tax on that foreclosed property. A conveyance tax is bourn only by a home seller regardless of the length of time the seller has owned the home.
The tax is calculated on the total sale price, not the equity or the profit that the seller makes. Every day at the closing table you can feel the stress that the homeowner, often bringing money to the closing table to avoid foreclosure or a high interest rate usually unexpected with that variable rate mortgage. Seniors in this state are being affected who live on a fixed income and need all of the equity that they have built over years of home ownership when it's time to sell their property.
Your home is one of your greatest investments and you don't want to see your equity going to a state government that continues to increase our taxes. Sunset the conveyance tax and hold the politicians to their word of a temporary increase and not a permanent increase disguised by temporary renewals of the tax.
Showing posts with label litchfiled. Show all posts
Showing posts with label litchfiled. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Monday, March 3, 2008
The Rights of Parents to Limit Visitation of their Children with Third Parties
Third Party Rights of Access in Connecticut
What has historically been in “the best interest of the child” is no longer the standard: the bar has been raised.
In Troxel.v Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), the Court recognized that the Washington Statute at issue permitted any third person to subject any parental decision regarding visitation to state review. A parent’s decision regarding their child is “…afforded no presumptive validity or given any weight…The statute places the best interests of the parents’ child solely in the hands of the judge and the judge’s view necessarily prevails. Therefore, the statute provides the state court judge with the authority to disregard the decisions of a fit parent regarding visitation rights of their child when, upon petition by a third party, the Court determines the child’s best interests contrary to the wishes of the fit parent.” Troxel at 565, 566.
The Court criticized the Superior Court decision for contravening the traditional presumption that a fit parent will act in the best interests of his or her child. “In that respect, the court’s presumption failed to provide any protection for Granville’s fundamental constitutional right to make decisions concerning the rearing of her own two daughters.” Troxel at 568.
Despite the suggestion that in an ideal world, parents might always seek to cultivate the bonds between grandparents and their grandchildren, the Court concluded that “[n]eedless to say, however, our world is far from perfect, and in it the decision whether an inter-generational relationship would be beneficial in any specific case is for the parent to make in the first instance. And, if a fit parent’s decision of the kind at issue here becomes subject to judicial review, the court must accord at least some special weight to the parents own determination.” Troxel at 569.
And thus it was held that the standard application to the determination of child/visitation cases regarding third person would no longer be determined by the best interests of the child but rather would be decided on the basis of an otherwise fit parent’s decision as to who, when and how others peoples’ lives may become integrated with their children’s lives, despite “the best interest of the child.”
What has historically been in “the best interest of the child” is no longer the standard: the bar has been raised.
In Troxel.v Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), the Court recognized that the Washington Statute at issue permitted any third person to subject any parental decision regarding visitation to state review. A parent’s decision regarding their child is “…afforded no presumptive validity or given any weight…The statute places the best interests of the parents’ child solely in the hands of the judge and the judge’s view necessarily prevails. Therefore, the statute provides the state court judge with the authority to disregard the decisions of a fit parent regarding visitation rights of their child when, upon petition by a third party, the Court determines the child’s best interests contrary to the wishes of the fit parent.” Troxel at 565, 566.
The Court criticized the Superior Court decision for contravening the traditional presumption that a fit parent will act in the best interests of his or her child. “In that respect, the court’s presumption failed to provide any protection for Granville’s fundamental constitutional right to make decisions concerning the rearing of her own two daughters.” Troxel at 568.
Despite the suggestion that in an ideal world, parents might always seek to cultivate the bonds between grandparents and their grandchildren, the Court concluded that “[n]eedless to say, however, our world is far from perfect, and in it the decision whether an inter-generational relationship would be beneficial in any specific case is for the parent to make in the first instance. And, if a fit parent’s decision of the kind at issue here becomes subject to judicial review, the court must accord at least some special weight to the parents own determination.” Troxel at 569.
And thus it was held that the standard application to the determination of child/visitation cases regarding third person would no longer be determined by the best interests of the child but rather would be decided on the basis of an otherwise fit parent’s decision as to who, when and how others peoples’ lives may become integrated with their children’s lives, despite “the best interest of the child.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
