Slashdot Mirror
Judge Rules Sprint Early Termination Fees Illegal
Antiglobalism writes to tell us that an Alameda County Judge has ruled against Sprint Nextel in a class-action lawsuit, awarding customers $18.2 million in restitution for early termination fees. "Though the decision could be appealed, it's the first in the country to declare the fees illegal in a state and could affect other similar lawsuits, with broad implications for the nation's fast-growing legions of cell phone users. The judge - who is overseeing several other suits against telecommunications companies that involve similar fees - also told the company to stop trying to collect $54.7 million from other customers who haven't yet paid the charges they were assessed. The suit said about 2 million Californians were assessed the fee."
Prorated termination costs seem reasonable, especially given the subsidies on the hardware. I was surprised to see that Sprint is the only company that doesn't prorate. I figured the wireless companies would avoid any change that makes it easier for customers to change providers. When selling a commodity it's essential to avoid the profit-killing, competing-on-price, race to the bottom.
This will be appealed, so I don't see anything changing in the short term. The figures on the $55 million in uncollected fees is impressive. It would be interesting to know how much of that would be profit after subtracting the depreciated cost of subsidized hardware.
The disappearance of the 1-year contract bugs me, but at least it's easier to move up and down in rate plans once you've signed up.
And yes, it would be nice to have the option to buy unlocked phones from any vendor and use them with any provider, but I'd bet that less than a quarter of the customer base would make use of this on a regular basis. TMobile comes closest to supporting this now, but I left them when I got an IPhone and really do miss dealing with them. Their customer service web site is far superior to AT&T's.
The article was light on details.. why did they decide that fees that are clearly stated in a contract before people entered the contract are now illegal?
I hate cell companies as much as anybody, but that's how they subsidise those cheap phone prices.
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
This sounds like a good time to get one of those $199 subsidized iPhones and walk away from the contract.
But isn't the whole mortgage crisis based on the same principle? People walking away from their contracts?
No, the mortgage crisis was caused by a combination of irresponsible lending practices by lenders and people attempting to live beyond their means. People walking away from the contracts was an effect, not a cause.
Surely EULAs are even less enforceable than signed contracts?
I hope that I read that wrong. You can get good deals by entering a long term agreement. I pay about $30 less per month for my collocation because I have a 2-year agreement. Are you saying that I should be able to pull out after a month and not have to pay anything? Even if my setup fee was waived because of the deal? That sounds unfair to the providers and if this continues it will result in higher prices for everyone.
I thought it had to do with irresponsible lending by the banks/borrowing by home buyers. Basically, the bar was lowered considerably by taking on high-risk mortgages as ARMs (Adjustable Rate Mortgages). When they tried to adjust the rate, the risk came back to bite them in the ass and the irresponsible borrower could not afford to pay it.
~ I am logged on, therefore I am.
because this is america and people only make decisions on the number they see. you can charge more but then someone will charge less and have a termination fee and this company will get all the business because everyone will say they are cheaper and go with them
To be a little more complete, the easily available credit also increased demand on real estate, thus driving prices upward drastically... and the combination of tightened credit availability and a slower economy has now caused prices to fall, leaving people in a negative equity situation.
Some of the problem is people signing stupid loans (A 5-1 ARM with a ridiculous teaser rate?). Because credit tightened up, in order to sell the home (or refinance) before the fixed period was up (almost everyone's plan), they would need to take a loss... which they couldn't do because they were in a negative equity situation.
I think that more so than people choosing to live beyond their means, it was people paying too much for properties they bought... the necessary market correction in property prices left a lot of people in bad shape. Speculation that property prices would continue rising is as much to blame as bad lending practices and poor budgeting.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
There are two key points in the article (couldn't the actual opinion) hitting these points:
Interesting; because judges are usually very reluctant to over-ride decisions made by juries. Generally, juries make findings of fact and the Judge makes the finding of law. Here, the Judge said that the Jury clearly erred in finding the contracts valid. Which makes me think that the Jury instructions were extremely poorly written, or that the Judge feels very strongly that the plaintiffs made the legal side of their case so well that "no reasonable jury" would have returned the decision that it did. (Also, I note that the Jury appears to have awarded damages despite finding that the contracts were valid -- this semi-contradictory result may have persuaded the judge to go in the direction she did.)
The second interesting argument:
YES! It is a founding principle of contract law that the non-breaching party's damage recovery is limited to its actual losses and its cost to make up the breaching party's violation of the agreement. Traditionally, a contract that agreed to damages in excess of the non-breaching party's actual exposure (i.e., punative damages) were ruled invalid and "reformed" by the court into something reasonable.
However, the courts over the past few decades have been relunctant to follow this principle -- instead, most consumer contracts today contain a "liquidated damages" clause, where the parties agree ahead of time on an estimate of what the actual damages would be. To me, fundamental principles of contract law dictate that an agreement to excessive liquidated damages clauses (particularly in consumer contracts) should not be upheld. I'm glad to see a court finally moving in that direction.
ARM5-1 isn't a stupid loan. Its a low rate for 5 years. The idea is that before the 5 years are up you either sell, or refinance to avoid the higher rate (possibly to another 5-1, possibly not). It's actually a smart idea if you don't plan on living there 30 years. Now if you want a bad loan, look at interest only, 3 month ARMs, and negative amortization loans.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Also, operators (particularly resellers like Carphone Warehouse) are willing to "buy out" contracts to encourage people to switch. They eat the termination fee on your behalf. Phone Company X gets its subsidy, Phone Company Y gets its customer, Customer gets his free or cheap phone.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
An adjustable rate mortgage, in and of out itself is not bad. In fact, before the reforms brought on by Great Depression centralized home lending into one system, the local bank would give you a ballon loan for 5 or 10 years, then refinance it or bounce it, and so on until the house was yours. 30 year mortgages were an effect of the federal banking system and didn't become common until post-WW II.
The high risk mortgage comes in where people were allowed to outright lie about their income and took on mortgage products traditionally used by people who had sterling credit. But the key is the outright lie there...if you're making 20K and then the broker has fluffed and self-reported your income to 50K or 60K, it doesn't matter what kind of loan you have, it's going bad.
On top of that, everybody went "Real Estate always goes UP!!!" which is flat out wrong and then used that to rate a loan that should have been a D into a B or C, thus putting a whole lot less risk on paper and making mortgage backed securities look like treasury bonds when they more like junk bonds.
I don't see where the "free ride" comes in. They lost the home, wiped out their savings, probably increased their debt, and (almost certainly) killed their credit rating. It will be a long time before they can attempt to own a home again, even if we assume they've learned from the experience.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
It's a stupid loan if you do not foresee a collapse in property prices in your area due to near-future restrictions on easy credit. This is what happened to many tens of thousands of people, and why so many people are hammered by a negative equity situation. They cannot sell, because they owe more than the vlaue of their home and do not have cash reserves... and theycannot afford their ballooned payments.
Sure, the lender will (if they are smart) renegotiate with the borrower... but many borrowers find it a better proposition to walk away and declare bankruptcy.
Yes, IO 3 month ARMs are REALLY bad... unless you're just flipping the property. Negative amortisation loans, same deal. Either case, you better know what's going on in the housing market locally before you jump in.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
This is good news for Sarah Conner.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
Whether Sabraw's ruling will stand isn't clear. Experts say an appeal is likely, and the Federal Communications Commission is considering imposing a rule - backed by the wireless industry - which might decree that only federal authorities can regulate early termination fees.
Sorry, Charley, Tenth Amendment says no:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
You just can't make jurisdiction up, but they certainly do try. They'll try to call it "interstate commerce", even though that provision was meant to keep the interstate commerce unimpeded, and not to be a source of power grabs.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Yes, creating risky or bad debt by giving loans to people who cannot afford them was a key part of the problem.
But the reason the crisis has exacerbated, and badly hurt major financial institutions (CitiBank, IndyMac) is because the process of debt selling allowed bad debt to be masked as good debt. There were insufficient safeguards to make sure that the people (investors, businesses, financial institutions, etc.) that put their money into these debts knew that they were as risky as they truly were.
Consider the Freddie Mac situation. As a quasi-private company, Freddie Mac is directed to make a profit. However, as a quasi-government entity, they have special rights such as the right to use the Federal Reserve as their bank, and the right to guaranteed loans at preset rates. These guarantees made Freddie Mac have an impeccable credit rating, despite the fact that, to continue growing their profit, they kept buying more and more debt that was downright awful.
In other words, Freddie Mac's credit rating didn't reflect the junk nature of their assets. The same is true for CitiBank and IndyMac and other banks that held debt that they may-or-may-not have known was bad, but wasn't being shown as bad on their books.
Things that could have prevented this:
1) Congress has decided that our country is more stable when people own their own residence, so it encourages home ownership. Freddie Mac exists for this reason. I think this conflicts greatly with their charge to earn a profit. Wikipedia says this: "Both Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke have spoken publicly in favor of greater regulation of the GSEs, because of the size of their holdings and the widespread perception that they are government backed.", which to me indicates that they agree. This quasi-goverment thing doesn't work. They should have been government owned, or privatized completely.
2) To avoid your home-town bank from getting its fingers (and your money) dirty in less-than-reliable debt, the depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, among other things, prevented banks from offering things like investments and insurance. The late-90s Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed those parts, allowing banks, insurance companies, and investment firms to co-mingle. It's been argued that this relaxation of regulation also contributed to the crisis, as it allowed institutions that need to be stable for financial security (banks) to engage in the riskier activities of investment firms.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
These people weren't given a loan, they applied for it. Now you can say that the lending institution shouldn't have given it to them, but they should have also known that they couldn't afford it. $5,000 net monthly would seem to be around $75,000 anually, $3,500 in monthly mortgage payments would be about a $600,000 mortgage. No rational set of human beings could begin to think that they could afford that. Undoubtedly they thought they could tough it out for a few years, make a huge return and move on. I feel absolutely no pity for them. They were idiotic and got exactly what they deserved. It shouldn't be the place of society to protect people from themselves.
I'm not not licking toads.
You think that's a free ride? Let's go over this again:
1. They have no home. Back to apartments for them.
2. They lost their savings.
3. They probably took on more debt.
4. Their ability to get new credit or make large purchases (e.g. a vehicle) is now stunted.
5. They have no hope of seeing another house for several years into the future.
6. Any long term plans they made are probably shot.
So how exactly is that a free ride? It sounds to me like they'll be paying a hefty price for quite a long time!
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Perhaps it's not the place of society to protect idiots from themselves, but it the place of society-at-large to protect itself from the idiots.
Let's say Couple A and Couple B are both bidding on a house. Both couples make roughly the same amount of money, have roughly the same amount of savings, and so forth. Couple A is sensible, and not willing to spend more than they can afford. Couple B, on the other hand, is more willing to take the risk, and bids up the house to a level they really can't afford. It only takes a couple of iterations of this sort of bidding war to inflate home prices to the point where sensible couple A has to choose: either join the fray and pay a little more than they can afford, or stay out and either rent or buy less house. This pattern escalates higher and higher, and sooner or later, all of this ends up in the kind of collapse we are now seeing, all of which could easily have been prevented had the proper checks been in place.
So I ask, wouldn't it be to the benefit of society (read - all of us who might someday like to buy a home) to ensure that these checks are in place and properly enforced?
A dress? Really?
This is a perfect place for a car analogy and you went with a custom-tailored silk dress? I mean... Driving around for 6 months without making payments and getting the car repossessed ~= A free car rental with the credit penalty being the only downside. It's that easy.
A dress?
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
I haven't finished paying for my home either. Obviously it's not truly mine. It's the bank's by way of lien until I finish paying it off. However, I do get to live there as long as I continue to make good on my loan. Welcome to mortgage 101.
The original poster explicitly said: "Needless to say within 6 months of blowing through their saving is came down to deciding to sell the house or starve to death."
Whether they got a zero down loan or not, they lost their savings in a futile attempt to be responsible after the fact.
My presumption is based on the fact that they actually made a serious attempt to pay for that home. If they managed to blow through all their savings in an attempt to pay for it, I can practically guarantee they also took on further debt as a direct result. Whether it be from putting groceries and goods on credit cards that didn't get paid off, or from borrowing to pay off bills they couldn't afford, there's a good chance they are now saddled with additional debt.
Well, I'm glad we can agree on something. :-P
Not necessarily. If they had gone through a better decision making process, there's a good chance they could have found a home that met their needs just as well and still be living in it today. i.e. The plan itself isn't always flawed. Sometimes it's just the execution. Which seems like a fairly likely situation if they foolishly obtained a house that had a $3500/mo mortgage on a $5000/mo income. As a home owner in a major city, I can tell you there are more affordable places to live.
I can see that the dressmaker would be a moron. Dresses lose most of their value as soon as they're worn. They don't make very good collateral against a loan. A house, on the other hand, usually gains value rather than losing it. Which means that the bank can repossess the home and resell it for what is left on the loan. The bank ends up getting their money, plus whatever profits they made off the borrowers while they were borrowing. A win-win deal for banks.
The only reason why things have gotten bad is NOT because people are defaulting on their mortgages. The banks hedged their bets and thought they would be fine in any situation. The reason why things have gotten bad was that banks got greedy and lent a massive number of loans they knew were unreasonable. The result was that the market flooded with repossessed property and the banks starting taking a loss.
So I guess your analogy does work. The banks were as foolish as that dress maker! :-P
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
You think that's a free ride? Let's go over this again:
1. They have no home. Back to apartments for them.
Actually, it's worse than that. To my knowledge, most decent apartment complexes do credit checks on prospective renters. So if you have bad credit (like a recent foreclosure), many apartments will not rent to you. So where are you going to live now? A lot of these people probably ended up either moving in with family, or renting ghetto apartments.
I'll add my spin on this one. I'll even go with your silly dress analogy (how on earth did you come up with this anyway?).
Let's say they promised a dressmaker $100 per month for a year for the dress, and then $1000 per month for the next 5 years afterwards (some more realistic numbers, since custom dresses usually cost many thousands of dollars, judging by what I've heard about bridal gowns). The dressmaker does a credit check, and finds that the buyer makes $15k/year working in fast food. The buyer can afford the $100/month, barely, but no way can she afford the $1000/month. The dressmaker decides to approve this financing for the buyer, knowing there's no way she can afford it after the first year. For the first year, the buyer pays the $100/month. Then, when the payments go up to 1k, she defaults. Dressmaker is outraged!
Who's the aggrieved party here? The one who stupidly made the loan, or the one who took advantage of the stupidity (ruining her credit in the process)? Personally, I think the blame falls on the lender, for making such a stupid decision. There's definitely times when people should be punished for taking advantage of the system, but this isn't one of those times. These lenders were absolutely corrupt and stupid for approving these loans, and they deserve to lose their businesses over them. The bad buyers are already getting punished, in a way; their credit is ruined, and they won't be buying a house again soon. That's punishment enough.
Also remember, the lenders never actually lost anything. The people borrowed money to buy these houses, and they used the houses as collateral. Remember that word? This means that the lenders agreed that these houses were worth what they were lending for them. When the buyers defaulted, the lenders repossessed the houses, and even kept all the mortgage payments already made. If the lenders can't get the same amount for those houses, that's their problem: they should have though about that first, instead of assuming that realty values always rise.
If you're going to lend money to people, it's up to you to make sure they're worthy of lending to. This is especially true for large financial institutions, who can easily afford to do all the necessary credit checks. The whole concept of the ARM is rooted in greed, and the lenders deserve to go out of business for making so many bad loans.
Yes, and that's why we shouldn't subsidize the risky loans. There's no way the financial institution would actually offer a loan that they know could not be repaid if the institution had to take the hit when the borrower walked away from the deal.
But instead of taking that hit, the lender lets the government bail them out of their stupid lending decisions so at the end, society is responsible for protecting people from themselves. We're protecting irresponsible lenders. The irresponsible borrowers take a bad credit hit which can have fairly nasty consequences, even to the point of making it difficult to get a job. The lender doesn't have to deal with those kind of consequences.
That bailout needs to go away. When Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac got into trouble, it almost did, but then the government bailed them out, so we're right where we always have been.
Perhaps you don't feel sorry for irresponsible borrowers, but they actually have an effect on the market that hurts everyone. If I want to get a 15 year mortgage at a decent interest rate, I have to remember that I will be placing competing bids with others who probably have 30 year loans, perhaps even interest-only loans with much lower payments. Those people will be easily able to outbid me, driving the price of the homes I am interested in beyond my means. In the end, I may be forced to take a different type of loan so that I don't end up in a dangerous neighborhood. The lenders love this, and will do everything they can to encourage it. The best way to discourage it is to make them pay for their own mistakes!
This is pure BS. Perhaps some played it as you describe, although it's incredibly stupid of them to have done and their credit is completely fucking shot now.
However, there's plenty of others that are completely devastated now. Like me. I told the loan agent up front what I could afford per month. I was told the home I was looking at would be less per month than I had set as a limit. So I agree, we get to the closing table, and I'm giving a totally different figure that's higher than what I had set as my limit. When I tried to back out, I was blindsided by a host of financial terms and figures that could only be described as pure fucking magic to my eyes, because none of those financial things are simple basic algebra. They shuffle money here and there and I'm told to just not worry about it, I wouldn't have been approved if I couldn't pay it.
Ok, I payed for almost 2 years on the home, struggling the whole way, only to have a major item go out and require replacing. One partial payment incurred a massive backlash of fees and they didn't even count my payment, and the next few payments didn't count either according to them. In the end, I've lost the home, couldn't get anyone to rent to me anymore because of it, my credit is completely shot and my savings is completely gone. Several loans I had to take out to cover major items in the home such as AC and water heater (you cannot live in the Midwest without AC, you die) I'm still on the hook for even though I don't even have the item anymore.
Now tell me, you callous asshole, that the past two years have been a fucking "free ride". I will now have to declare bankruptcy, I have no home, can't get anyone to rent to me so I'm stuck living with relatives, and all of my savings is gone. But that home did me such good, didn't it?