| Volume 34 Number 11 |
Subscribe to the Newsletter
Forward this news alert to your family and friends
Helpful Links
Texas Consumer Complaint Center
Credit Reports and Identity Theft
Your Guide to Small Claims Court
Contact Us
1-713-743-2168
The People’s Lawyer’s Tip of the Day
Extended warranties, or service contracts, are usually not a good buy or even necessary. Stores make a large profit selling these contracts and often pressure consumers into buying them. Take your time and think carefully before you buy an expensive item that you don't even need. Click here for more.
Manage Your Money & Avoid Extra Fees
Don't worry! If you have money in a bank account, you're safe. Until Jan. 1, 2010, the federal government will insure your account for up to $250,000. Be careful! Choosing the right place to put your money can save you hundreds of dollars. Find out how to choose an interest bearing account that exceeds inflation, how to get better rates, and how to streamline your own financial operations. Click here for more.
What to Know - Refund-Anticipation Loans
With tax day approaching, many consumers are in serious need of a refund. Some companies are capitalizing on the need. A refund-anticipation loan gives filers their income tax return early, but often at a very high cost. Before you make a bad deal, find out what you need to know. Click here for more.
Microsoft Severance Glitch
In this global financial crisis, even Microsoft is struggling. More surprising may be that Microsoft made an error when laying off employees. Earlier this week, Microsoft accidentally overpaid the severance packages of some former employees. Initially, Microsoft demanded the money back. Now, Microsoft has changed it's tone - "We are reaching out to those impacted to relay that we will not seek any payment from those individuals." Click here for more.
Your Money
Which is better: a new or used vehicle? Click here for more.
For the Lawyers
Dunning letters signed by corporate officers did not violate FDCPA. The Third Circuit has reversed the district court, holding that letters did not violate the FDCPA because they were plainly sent on behalf of the corporation and not individuals. The court noted that while the officers were deemed to have authorized the letters, they were not attorneys, they did not actually write or sign the letters, and the letters were sent without the officers’ knowledge. The court, therefore, answered in the negative the question certified by the district court, "Does it violate the FDCPA for a senior officer of the debt collector, who had no personal involvement in the collection of the debts, to sign dunning letters addressed to putative debtors?" Click here for more.