Ripoff Report Needs Your Help!
X  |  CLOSE
Report: #339094

Complaint Review: Texas Real Estate Magazine - Granbury Texas

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: houston Texas
  • Author Confirmed What's this?
  • Why?
  • Texas Real Estate Magazine P.o. Box 5159 Granbury, Texas U.S.A.

Texas Real Estate Magazine Watch Out Professional Bullies Grandbury Texas

*REBUTTAL Owner of company: Roosevelt Mortgage - Response to Complaint

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

Is this
Report about YOU
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
content.
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
How to fix
Ripoff Report
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Warning this company is nothing but professional bullies. Today my company recieved letter from their attorney stating that I was slandering them and they were going to sue me personally in small claims court. Last time I checked there was no law against me complaining to the Rip off report or the Better Business Bureau. We honored and fulfilled the contractual agreement for the 6 months and paid all invoices to date. The invoices and contract was clearly in my company's corporate name. We never recieved any notification that they were automatically renewing the contract. They sent bills that I disputed but they would not stop. When they served me at my corporate office they had it as a DBA and so they could personally attack and damage my credit report and my company credit. The contract which was originally signed with a typed date commencing on May 07 for 6 months and ending on Oct 07 - When my attorney questioned this at the small claims court - they faxed over a scratched out bycontract with handwritten dates of Nov 07 start and April 08. There were no intitals from myself or any one else from my company. Last time I checked that a contract with any alterations by either party must be intialed by all parites involved. I don 't know what they are talking about me not being an authorized signer on my corporation - I'm the only owner and have been for 10 years. The magazine was a cheap newpaper print with no organzied lay out. Of course they denied me disputing the bill. They knew that I would have to go all the way from Houston Texas to Grandbury with an attorney to sit in small claims court all day long - which with my documerntation - showing the scratched altered contract with no intials by myself or any of my staff members, my corporate papers and the invoices showing that the agreement was between a corporation not me personally - and I was not a DBA. I never got to show any of this to court. I simply warning everyone to watch out for companies like this who prey companies. My company was screwed -I was screwed - I hope this does not happen to anyone else. They need to be stopped.

Kim
houston, Texas
U.S.A.

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 06/10/2008 08:06 PM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/texas-real-estate-magazine/granbury-texas-76049/texas-real-estate-magazine-watch-out-professional-bullies-grandbury-texas-339094. 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!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Updates & Rebuttals

REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
0Author
0Consumer
1Employee/Owner

#1 REBUTTAL Owner of company

Roosevelt Mortgage - Response to Complaint

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

POSTED: Wednesday, June 11, 2008

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.

If anyone would like additional information regarding this matter please let me know immediately and I will make every effort possible to provide them to you in the quickest manner possible.

Respond to this report!
What's this?
Featured Reports

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

X
What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

WATCH News
Segment Now