Reply With Quote
Did you read over the entire contract when you signed for the phone?
Classic thread.
Did you read over the entire contract when you signed for the phone?
http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/phones/...msung-Behold-2
Samsung Behold® II
With the Samsung Behold II, powered by Android, you will experience the freedom of web and also show off your fashionable lifestyle by its cool design and powerful multi-media functions. Behold II, the ultimate web and multi-media at your fingertips! A data service is required with this phone.
Did you read the entire acceptance do ent for the data plan?
The interesting thing- if I understand correctly- and hopefully FWD will correct me if I am wrong: When a HOA puts a lien against a house, it is secondary to the lien of a fianancial ins ution. They can not foreclose on the house that is not owned outright by the homeowner. They could only do this because the guy owned his house free and clear.
Are you suggesting some sort of conspiracy? Such as, they knew his house was owned and paid for totally, so they wanted to take it when they realized how easy it was? I'm sure the HOA is just a legit en y attempting to get they deserve from the homeowner that is operating fully within the law (which is based off logic and common sense, so it can't be wrong and lawmakers have no incentive to change it), it just so happened they could take it his house and get a nice deal out of it...c'mon WC, back me up!
Still waiting to see if WC read both the entire terms of use in the contract for the phone service and the data plan.
No, I didn't read it entirely, but knew what to expect. Besides, I was referring to large purchases like a house.
You can get a data phone without a data package. I did that with the phone I had before this one. Liked the phone but didn't need any of the rest. The only data features I use on this phone is the GPS, and sometimes YouTube. I don't worry about charges.
Only to utilize the features added with the Android system.A data service is required with this phone.
So if the contract said something in the middle of it, like, "User agrees to purchase a Ferrari for whichever customer representative sells them this phone", would that be an example of an illegal contract, or would that be a case of you being dumb by not reading the entire contract but signing it anyways?
You have to get it whether you use the features or not.
That's a real stretch, and you know it.
I'm more offended at changes that the regulators allow without requiring customer notification. Charges can be assigned to cell phones, and it's been like this a few years now. I first got a cell phone last century. They didn't have such chargeable features back then. I had a few times I had charges on my daughters phone for online games. She had to enter her cell number to get a password to play, all along not knowing this was to charge $9.99 to the phone number. I always had the services reversed when i asked them how can they expect me to keep my service if they are going to allow such financial solicitation to minors. In the end, I blocked all such user privileges on that line. Not because the phone company didn't cooperate with me. They did. It's just my daughter made me contact them one too many times, so I cut her off from that responsibility, and nice things like ring-tones.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 07-04-2010 at 01:36 PM.
No you don't, at least not with T-Mobile. You just have to pay more for the phone, because the phone is actually rather expensive. The phone costs less because they expect to get the money back with the data service.
I did have to pay more for my first data phone for that reason.
right, because the banks flex their muscles against HOAs in situations like this if there is a still a note out on it.
How comes it says "A data service is required for this phone" then? Seems misleading if you could purchase the phone outright and avoid the data plan.
Of course. I'm using it as an example that just because someone signs to a clause in a contract, doesn't ipso facto make it legally binding. It also made my point that sometimes clauses are hidden in contracts, and people who don't read the entire contracts aren't "dumbasses".
They are probably bound by this contract, but if the contract is shown to be invalid for one reason or another (I'm not a lawyer, don't know how that would work), then they should be able to get their house back. ANd I believe most posters are complaining not just about THIS situation, but a law that allows this situation to occur.
Agreed that "These terms and conditions may change" clause is pretty bs.
Since it is vaguely relevant to vy.
Someone asked for an update... i'll try to find one
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2010...-clauer-updateA few folks have been asking me on Twitter, so I figured MoJo readers were owed an update on Michael Clauer, the Texas soldier who lost his $300,000 home over an $800 debt while he was serving in Iraq.
When I wrote about the Clauers' plight in May, it hadn't yet received any national attention. But reader response was swift. The article garnered over 650 comments on MotherJones.com, plus thousands more on Huffington Post and other sites that linked to our investigation. Fortunately, this story has a happy ending. [Read the original story here.]
I exchanged emails with the Clauers' lawyer, Barbara Hale, earlier this month, and she told me the case has been resolved. As of now, it looks like Michael, his wife May, and their two children will get their home back. The financial terms of the settlement are confidential.
The Clauers were saved by a law called the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, which essentially forbids foreclosing on active-duty troops. If Michael hadn't been on active duty, the Clauers might not have had any legal recourse. Of course, they really shouldn't have had to deal with lawyers in the first place. Whatever happened to being neighborly? Here's an excerpt from the original story:
Michael went on active duty in February 2008 and was sent to Iraq. After he shipped out, his wife May slipped into a deep depression, according to court do ents. "A lot of people say that the deployment is more stressful on the spouse than the actual person who's being deployed," Michael, 37, says in an interview with Mother Jones. May Clauer had two kids to take care of—a ten-year-old and a one-year-old with a serious seizure-related disorder. In addition, she was worried sick about her husband. Michael's company was doing convoy security in Iraq—an extremely dangerous job. "It was a pretty tough year for the whole company," he says. "We had IEDs, rocket attacks and mortar attacks, and a few soldiers that were hurt pretty bad and had to be airlifted back to the States."
Seeking to avoid hearing about the situation in Iraq, May stopped watching the news. She rarely answered the door, and Michael says he couldn't tell her when he went "outside the wire"—off-base. May also stopped opening the mail. "I guess she was scared that she would hear bad news," says Michael. That was why she missed multiple notices from the Heritage Lakes Homeowners Association informing her that the family owed $800 in dues—and then subsequent notices stating that the HOA was preparing to foreclose on the debt and seize the home.... In May 2008, the HOA sold the Clauers' home for a pittance—$3,500—although its appraisal value was $300,000, according to court do ents. The buyer then resold the house to a third person. (Select Management Co., the company that manages Heritage Lakes, declined to comment for this story.)
...At no point did anyone from the HOA—which is, after all, composed of the Clauers' neighbors—appear to have tried to visit May Clauer's house to talk to her about the problem. "The HOA board members...don't live very far from me at all," Michael Clauer says. There were "neighbors owing much more than us [who] were notified in person of pending foreclosures, but my wife only received a few letters." David Schechter of the Dallas/Fort Worth television station WFAA, which first reported this story, notes that the "Clauers' HOA says homeowners are free to call them, but they do not call or visit homeowners when there's a problem. They're only required to send a certified letter."
If folks from the homeowners association had bothered to knock on May Clauer's door, they might have avoided all this—the legal fees, the negative press attention, and the (surely large) settlement costs. But they didn't, and they paid the price. Fred Rogers would be ashamed.
Here's an interesting postscript: When I asked whether the homeowners association that foreclosed on Clauer admitted wrongdoing, Hale emailed back "Heck No!" Homeowners associations have enormous power. In 33 states, they can foreclose without a court order over a few hundred dollars in unpaid dues. The process in Texas is especially quick—just 27 days. Texas HOAs have been bedeviled by allegations that they are taking advantage of the law. Some have even been accused of specifically targeting people who own their homes free and clear—like the Clauers did—so that they can flip the house and make a profit. Until the laws are reformed so that it's harder to take people's homes over a few hundred bucks, you're going to keep seeing these sorts of stories. At least this one had a happy ending.
This post has been extended since it was first published.
Guardsman who lost Frisco home to HOA foreclosure is leaving Texas .
http://www.wfaa.com/news/consumer/Gu...112686954.html
FAA
Posted on December 30, 2010 at 6:28 PM
Wonder whatever happened to the billsThe parties involved reached a confidential settlement. In August, the property was transferred back to the Clauers.
Clauer is taking an active-duty position with the Army in Virginia, but says he hopes to tell his story to lawmakers during the upcoming session of the Texas Legislature.
The Clauers' story has helped inspire the filing of three separate bills to curb the foreclosure powers of HOAs.
I don't understand how this sort of thing isn't considered "unconscionable."
Carona is an evil man.Among the defenders of the current system is State Sen. John Carona (R-Dallas). Carona is not only the author of many of the current HOA laws in Texas, some say he benefits most from it.
Carona owns Associa, the nation's largest property management company and the parent company of Principal Management Group, which manages Timber Creek Estates.
http://www.wfaa.com/news/investigate...122680849.html
Shocking.
I would think the stink of corruption runs pretty high in the Texas government.
The more one sniffs around the edges, the stinkier it gets.
No comment from our resident lawyer yet, I see.
This is a classic case of a soldier living outside his means. 800 a month for HOA dues is way over a captain's ability to pay. It's not uncommon to see soldiers live beyond their means and use the military status as an excuse to avoid foreclosure.
They went ignored, just like the utility and HOA bills. Bet the kids have Ipads and Iphones and wear designer clothes.
You have to think outside the box, keep an open mind.
Legislative bills, tbh
I didn't reread it, but it was probably not $7400 a year for hoa dues.
Wasn't it $250/month?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
