by

Over and over again I have personally witnessed a lemon law plaintiff tear up or actually begin to cry while recounting the numerous repairs involved with their vehicle. Back when I defended lemon law cases, I can recall being amazed at how emotional these people became. I understood that numerous time-consuming trips to the dealership, sometimes for the same thing over and over again, could be very frustrating. But sometimes the reaction seemed to go beyond that…

A recent AP-AOL Autos poll emphasizes how much our car means to some of us. The Indianapolis Star reported the following summary of poll results:

GENDER DIFFERENCES: Women, 26 percent, were more likely than men, 16 percent, to have nicknames for their cars. Unmarried women, 30 percent, were more likely than men or married women to give their cars nicknames. Nearly four in five, 78 percent, said they enjoy driving, while 20 percent consider it more of a bother. Women were more likely than men to think of their cars as female – 27 percent to 19 percent. Almost half of women, 44 percent, said they have thought their car had a personality of its own, compared with 30 percent of men. Over half, 55 percent, of single women said they have thought their car had a personality of its own, compared with 36 percent of married women and 33 percent of single men.

Continue reading

by

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has announced its list for the safest vehicles of 2007. Not surprisingly, its “Top Safety Picks” did not include a single small car. Four cars, seven SUVs and two minivans made the list which, sadly, also did not include a single domestic brand vehicle.

Here are the winners:

1. Audi A6, large car 2. Audi A4, midsized car 3. Saab 9-3, midsized car 4. Subaru Legacy (equipped with optional ESC), midsized car 5. Hyundai Entourage, minivan 6. Kia Sedona, minivan 7. Mercedes M-Class, luxury SUV 8. Volvo, XC90, luxury SUV 9. Acura RDX, midsized SUV 10. Honda Pilot, midsized SUV 11. Subaru B9 Tribeca (equipped with optional ESC), midsized SUV 12. Honda CR-V, small SUV 13. Subaru Forester, small SUV

Continue reading

by

Wynn Resorts Chairman Steve Wynn yesterday filed a lawsuit against insurance company Lloyds of London. I can’t help but comment on this lawsuit, not because I have anything of value to say about the law involved, but because the facts giving rise to the lawsuit are so humorous.

Wynn is a very rich gambling mogul. How rich? Well, Mr. Wynn owns a 1932 painting by Picasso called “Le Reve,” which he purchased in the late ’90’s for about 50 million dollars. Somehow last September, in an unspeakable moment of clumsiness, Wynn poked a hole in the painting with his elbow while showing it off to friends. He had sold the painting the day before for 139 million dollars, but the deal fell through after the damage was disclosed.

Wynn is seeking 54 million dollars from Lloyd’s, which, according to Wynn, is the loss in value of the painting following the damage.

Continue reading

by

Many Hoosiers don’t know that forgiven, or canceled, debt is considered income by the IRS and must be reported as such on an individual or business tax return. Let’s say, for example, that you have $80,000 of credit card debt and are able to negotiate the payment of these accounts for fifty cents on the dollar. You refinance your home, take out $40,000 and pay off the credit cards. You have received $40,000 of income from the forgiveness of half the debt, and must report this income on your tax return.

You should receive a Form 1099-C Cancellation of Debt from the creditor. The creditor is also required to provide a copy of the 1099-C to the IRS.

There are a few limited exceptions. If the forgiveness was intended as a gift, the debt was canceled because of Hurricane Katrina, the student loan debt was canceled because of work you performed, or the price of property you purchased was reduced after the purchase, the forgiveness may not be considered income. There are a few other limited exceptions. For more information, consult IRS Publication 17, Chapter 12.

by

I recently came across a survey conducted by the California Public Interest Research Group and the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. The survey was conducted in the spring of 2000 and included 66 identity fraud victims who were selected because they had contacted these agencies. Since millions of people have been victims of identity theft, the survey can in no way be considered representative. In fact, it is probably representative of victims who were most adversely impacted. Even so, and even though the survey is several years old, I think it is some great anecdotal evidence of the devastation that identity theft can sometimes cause.

Here is a summary of the survey’s findings:

§ Forty-five (45%) of the victims consider their cases to be solved; and it took them an average of nearly two years, or 23 months, to resolve them. Victims (55%) in the survey whose cases were open, or unsolved, reported that their cases have already been open an average of 44 months, or almost 4 years.

§ Three-fourths, or 76%, of respondents were victims of “true name fraud.” Victims reported that thieves opened an average of six new fraudulent accounts; the number ranged from 1 to 30 new accounts.

§ The average total fraudulent charges made on the new and existing accounts of those surveyed was $18,000, with reported charges ranging from $250 up to $200,000. The most common amount of fraudulent charges reported was $6,000.

Continue reading

by

Many people don’t realize that the biggest problem with identity theft is not usually liability for the fraudulently incurred debt. Victims of identity theft seldom are saddled with any significant debt as a result of the fraud. The credit card companies and other businesses who deal with the perpetrators usually eat most or all of these losses.

In the meantime, however, the victim’s credit report often ends up in shambles. This can be very difficult to clean up. If you want to see for yourself just how difficult, here are some tips:

1. Don’t shred or tear up your financial documents – just throw them in the trash.

Continue reading

by

This blog post is going to be short, because there’s really no discussion necessary.

When you purchase a car at a dealership, HAVE YOUR FINANCING LINED UP BEFORE YOU VISIT THE DEALERSHIP. Period. It’s that simple.

This will help you avoid the possibility of being a victim of a host of possible scams, will assure you get the best rate possible, and will give you leverage in negotiating the purchase price of the vehicle. Don’t finance through the dealership.

by

Revised provisions of the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act went into effect January 1, 2007. The revisions aren’t significant, but this Act is. It is designed to protect consumers from “deceptive and unconscionable sales acts.”

Some deceptive acts are specifically outlined in the Act, such as:

1. Falsely claiming that a consumer good:

Continue reading

by

If you watch much Court TV, you know that it’s not uncommon anymore for police to seize an accused’s computer and use information obtained from the hard drive against the accused. But the hard drive is not the only repository of information concerning the computer user’s activities. I just read this excerpt written by Greg Beck in the Consumer Law & Policy Blog:

Although there is no indication in the court’s opinion about how prosecutors in this case obtained the search data, Google has acknowledged that it can trace searches back to a particular computer or, in some cases, to a particular user. What exactly does Google know about you? Its privacy policy states that it automatically records information that your browser sends whenever you visit a website. This can include your search terms, IP address, date and time of your search request, and, if you have cookies enabled, possibly your personal identity. Google also acknowledges that it can track which links you click from its search results. In short, Google may have several years’ worth of your search activity stored in its databases, and it may be able to connect much or all of this activity back to you.

Now, I consider myself the epitome of the law-abiding citizen. But this information makes me go “Hmmmmm?” Even if I do some searches on my computer that I wouldn’t want at least certain other people to know about, I suppose I probably don’t have anything to worry about as long as I don’t become a criminal defendant.

Continue reading

by

Incoming Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) has announced his intent to hold hearings in 2007 aimed at the credit reporting industry. Frank believes that the 2003 Fact Act that provided consumers easier and cheaper access to their credit report may not have gone far enough. Providing access is a good start, but if consumers cannot correct the errors they find on their credit reports, then Frank believes further legislation may be warranted.

Frankly, (ha ha) this comes as no surprise to me. When a consumer disputes (click here to see a sample dispute letter) an item on their credit report with one of the big three credit reporting agencies, Trans Union, Experian and Equifax, the dispute is transmitted electronically to the creditor. In some cases, the creditor then verifies, or confirms as correct, incorrect information. The credit reporting agency then reports back to the consumer that the disputed information is correct and will not be removed from the consumer’s credit report. At this point, the credit reporting agency feels it has done all it can, and directs the consumer to contact the creditor directly to address potentially incorrect information. The problem is, sometimes the consumers doesn’t know how to contact the creditor or the creditor is unresponsive.
Continue reading