Report: #363644

Complaint Review: Texas Real Estate Magazine

  • Submitted: Sat, August 16, 2008
  • Updated: Sun, August 17, 2008
  • Reported By: Grandbury Texas
  • Texas Real Estate Magazine
    5904 Walnut Creek Circle
    Granbury, Texas

Texas Real Estate Magazine - Steve Haines FRAUDLENT ADVERTISER Grandbury Texas

*REBUTTAL Owner of company: Roosevelt Mortgage - Houston Texas - Damages For Baseless Claims

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

On 3/15/2008 we entered into a contract to adversative with the Texas Real Estate Magazine located at P.O. box 5159 Granbury Texas 76049 for 6 months. The contract was in Roosevelt Mortgage Inc name completed on Oct 07 and all bills had been paid current to date. We were very dissatisfied with the magazine results and questioned the distribution. My company was running over 15k a month in various advertisment vehicles with the same ad and never got any results from this publication.

We cancelled the contract but the company supposedly continued to run an ad which we never saw a copy of any ads nor did we ever sign any additional agreement to continue running the advertisement. We got bills in Roosevelt Mortgage Inc. name and dispute each time we received them. The next thing we know we got served in small claims court in Granbury Texas against to Kimberly Kirk dba Roosevelt Mortgage for $1200 dollars. This would be that they were suing me personally which this was clearly a corporate debt that was not even owed. I immediately contacted my attorney and informed her of this.

She contacted the courts and stated that we were not under contract and the agreement was between Roosevelt Mortgage Inc not Kimberly Kirk and the actions would be in Harris County. The Texas Real Estate Magazine sent over a contract that was scratched out never initialed clearly in Roosevelt Mortgage's name and the venue would be Granbury. Since they filed in the small claims court against me personally and my company in Granbury, I was going to have to travel over 6 hours to defend myself personally and my company.

I finally because of expense and time and to protect my personal credit decided to settle and pay them $1000. I know that I would have prevailed but did not want to incur additional attorney fees. This company is fraud and misrepresented themselves. They forged a legal document and purposely filed a claim against myself even though the agreement was signed by Roosevelt Mortgage Inc. and not personally guaranteed by myself. They knew that they could exhort money out of me and my company because we would not have gone to Granbury. We are demanding full repayment of attorney fees in the amount of $1497 and all money claimed owed dismissed in the amount of $1000.

Grandbury, Texas
Is this Ripoff Report About you?
Ripoff Report A business' first line of defense on the Internet.
If your business is willing to make a commitment to customer satisfaction Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation? Fix it the right way. Corporate Advocacy Program™

Set the record straight: Arbitration Program

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 08/16/2008 02:37 PM and is a permanent record located here: The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
Also a victim?
Repair Your Reputation!

Updates & Rebuttals


#1 REBUTTAL Owner of company

Roosevelt Mortgage - Houston Texas - Damages For Baseless Claims

AUTHOR: Stevcom - (U.S.A.)

Ms. K and her firm, Roosevelt Mortgage, were very good customers of ours who advertised with us in both of our publications. We regretted losing her account.

First, Ms. K claims to have entered into a contract to advertise with us on March 15, 2008. This is incorrect, as Ms. K's first advertising agreement with us began with our November 2006 issues and ended with our April 2007 issues. Ms. K signed and faxed back her initial advertising agreement on August 28, 2006 with a contact date of September 1, 2006. Ms. K's second signed agreement commenced with the May 2007 editions, and ended with the October 2007 editions.

Prior to the end of Ms. K's second agreement we initiated an automatic renewal program for all contract renewals to simplify our internal procedures. Both contracts Ms. K signed have language that allows for auto renewals, however to make sure all of our customers understood that they would no longer be receiving a new contract to sign at the end of the contract, each was sent a letter on August 3, 2007 explaining the change and the new procedures regarding contract renewals. Additionally, on August 22, 2007, Ms. K was sent a renewal notice relating to her upcoming renewal based on her contract expiration date.

We have no documentation in any of our files indicating any type of dissatisfaction from Ms. K or questions relating to our distribution. Our policy is to provide all of our customers with full disclosure of our distribution totals supported by printing invoices. Furthermore, we do not have any record or Ms. K ever requesting that her ad be cancelled, nor has Ms. K ever furnished to us any evidence that she made any attempt to contact us regarding canceling her advertising agreements.

Ms. K asserts that she disputed each billing she received. We have no knowledge or record of Ms. K ever calling, writing or e-mailing us anything regarding the bills she received. If any documentations supporting such claims was provided to you regarding this allegation we would very much like to see it.

Unfortunately, we were forced to cancel Ms. Ks adverting with us after her ads appeared in the December 2007 editions of our magazines for non-payment of her account.

At the time we cancelled Ms. K's advertising her outstanding balance was $1205.00. Ms. K received an invoice for each publication and a copy of her ad for each magazine each month. In addition, Ms. K received monthly statements as to her overall account activity and payments we received. Before Ms. K's agreement was cancelled, but within the parameters of being past due, we sent a letter to Ms. K at the beginning of each month alerting her to her past due balance and requesting her account be brought current. We failed to receive any form of response to these written requests from Ms. K, which ultimately lead to our canceling her agreements.

Following the cancellation of Ms. K's agreements we proceeded with our standard collection policies. We sent Ms. K a series of letters requesting payment of her outstanding balance. On January 2, 2008 we sent Ms. K a certified letter alerting her to our intentions to file suit in small claims court for the outstanding balance. On January 17, 2008 we filed suit in Hood County Texas small claims court for the outstanding balance plus court costs of $77.00.

Ms. K's allegations that she knew nothing about this prior to receiving service for the suit we filed on January 17, 2008, along with all of the other correspondence we had mailed to her, and along with her normal billing invoices and statements are false. Her own employee picked up the certified letter on January 7, 2008. Still, we received no contact from her regarding the past due balance we were trying to collect.

The allegations Ms. K make regarding the contracts she signed are also false, misleading, and inflammatory. Ms. K's signatures do not designate her as a corporate officer of Roosevelt Mortgage. Her assertions that we did not have the correct venue for the suit are also false as our contracts clearly state that all disputes will be agreed to be settled in Granbury, Hood County Texas or, in the case of her first agreement, Eastland, Eastland County Texas. (we relocated our offices to Granbury, Texas in January 2007)

Nothing has been scratched out or altered on the agreements as Ms. Kirk asserts. Ms. K's allegations of forgery are serious and without merit.

Prior to the trial date that was set by the Hood County Small Claims Court Ms. K's attorney, Betsy L. Grubbs, contacted us and asked if we would accept a $300.00 settlement for what Ms. K owed. We declined the amount offered. A day before the trial date Ms. K's attorney called and offered another settlement amount, which we also declined to accept. However, we did extend a counter-offer of $1,000.00 to allow her to settle her account. Ms. K's attorney asked if we would allow her to pay this amount over time, which I agreed to allow. I asked Ms. K's attorney to find out what Ms. K could pay on a monthly basis that would work for her, as we wanted the payments to be within her budget. Ms. K's attorney called back and offered to pay the $1,000.00 over a six-month period beginning June 15, 2008, which we accepted.

In closing, let me please express again that Ms. K's allegations are incorrect and baseless. We have been in business since 2001 and have never had any question from any of our customers relating to our credibility or how we conduct our business. Our reputation is very important to us and we will go to great measure to protect it. Ms. K's allegations and comments regarding our company are made in bad faith, without merit, and with the clear intent to threaten our reputation and, if made public, to damage our company. It is our position that Ms. K is attempting to defame Texas Real Estate Magazine simply because she unilaterally decided not to pay her bill, and we asked her to honor her contractual obligations.

Unfortunately Ms. K has decided to continue her baseless attempt to hurt our companies reputation with inaccurate information and false allegations. While we had ellected to simply try and resolve the matter with attempts to collect the outstanding balance of her account we will now be forced to seek relief and damages through the legal system. Ms. K has also attempted to slander our company in other venues who, thankfully, require these types of allegations and assertions be supported by verifiable information.
Respond to this report!
Ripoff Report Recommends
ZipBooks Accounting Software

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.