| Volume 103 Number 5 |
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
Don't think stopping payment on a check protects you from having to pay when a problem arises. If the check is transferred to another person, you probably will have to pay, even if you have a legitimate reason to not pay the person to whom you gave the check.
For more general information about the law, check out my website.
Click here for more.
Beware! Paying for College With Credit Cards
Even with grants and scholarships, college can be really expensive. Although most students use student loans to pay for higher education, some might find it more convenient to use a credit card. Unfortunately, as convenient as it may seem, it can be an incredibly expensive endeavor.
Credit cards have much higher interest rates than traditional student loans. Additionally, many credit card companies won't allow consumers to receive rewards points when paying for tuition and fees.
About 87% of colleges and universities accept credit card payments for tuition and fees. However, the convenience of paying with a credit card for college doesn't come without a price. In addition to high interest rates associated with credit cards, most colleges charge an additional "convenience fee" for using a credit card.
The average "convenience fee"? 2.62%
That means, for a $10,000 tuition bill, students will pay an additional $262 before interest is factored in.
Some students will have a gap between what their loans will cover and the amount actually owed. As convenient as a credit card may seem, it may be better to explore other payment possibilities before paying with plastic.
What are your options?
Click here for more.
SCOTUS Stops Wisconsin Voter ID Law
In the upcoming election, Wisconsin voters won't have to provide photo identification before casting their ballots. On Thursday, the Supreme Court of the United States blocked a Wisconsin voter identification law from taking effect. Those challenging the law asserted that it would have deterred or prevented a significant population without proper photo identification from voting in the upcoming election. Furthermore, they argued it would have a disproportionate impact on elderly and minority voters, as backed up by a recent study from the Government Accountability Office.
A federal court in Texas struck down a similar voter identification requirement, citing the disproportionate impact on minority voters. Of the law, the Court said it "creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose."
In the Wisconsin case, three members of the Supreme Court dissented and would have allowed the voter identification requirement.
Is voter impersonation a significant issue?
Click here for more.
Hackers Breach Kmart Payment Systems
Add Kmart to the long list of companies dealing with payment data systems breaches. On Friday night, Kmart announced that maleware installed on its in-store payment system has exposed consumer credit and debit card information.
Kmart has not announced how many consumers were impacted by the breach, but did say that consumers shopping online were not affected.
Have you recently shopped at Kmart? As with any potential breach, you should monitor your credit card statement closely for any potential discrepancies. If you notice a problem, notify your credit card company immediately.
Click here for more.
Your Money
Historical inflation - compare purchasing power over time.
Click here for more.
For the Lawyers
Arbitration agreement is unenforceable because it did not contain clear and unambiguous language that the plaintiff is waiving her right to sue.
The New Jersey Supreme Court invalidated an arbitration provision in a debt-adjustment company contract, largely by characterizing arbitration as a waiver of a citizen’s right under the New Jersey Constitution to a trial by jury. The court assumed that “an average member of the public may not know…that arbitration is a substitute for the right to have one’s claim adjudicated in a court of law.”
Given that framing of the issue, the court found the arbitration clause lacked “clear and unambiguous language that the plaintiff is waiving her right to sue or go to court to secure relief,” and therefore was unenforceable.
Click here for more.