Woman Sues Neiman for 1.4 million...

  1. she was approving of it until she found out he was cheating . . that's the thing.
    I've never had an SA abuse having my info.

    I still wholeheartedly believe she's scorned and going after the wrong people :shrugs:
    Can't help it, it's how I feel.
  2. She's hoping in turn it affects the other woman, I suppose. LOL Some nerve...her husband.
  3. No one is supposed to be using anyone else's credit cards (um, it's called FRAUD). If the store allows it, it's the store's fault. Someone stole my wallet and had a field day charging at multiple stores before I realized my wallet was stolen. The stores didn't check ID or signature on any of the purchases!! Luckily, my credit card company voided the purchases, and the store had to eat the cost of everything that was purchased illegally.
  4. #49 Jun 3, 2012
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2012
    I can't believe people are siding with NM. This lady was in an accident and bedridden when all this was going on. I would bet there is much more to this story and her husband and the SA who represents NM. If the returns totaled a smaller amount of money, this would not be an issue as they would have allowed them.

    Remember that these charges (as in charge send) were not done on her approval, but the DH who does NOT sign on the account. Big difference IMO. Read any credit agreement and the account holder is the only one authorzied to charge.

    ETA : The suit also alleges that NM knew about the affair and still allowed the charges. Evidently, Mrs. Walker was hospialized for several months before becoming homebound. I saw a post from someone that knows Ms. Walker and she claims that Mr. Tennison (the husband) has done this before. He sounds like a real gem, but the culprit is the SA and NM which profitted from the purchases while knowing the full situation.
  5. And I'm just wondering, when people say they borrow their DHs card, or their kid uses the card, etc...what name are they signing? Because it has to be the same name as on the card, are they signing their own name or just forging the cardholders? Because even though you may be 'loaning' out the card, by signing someone else's name on the slip they're committing forgery. If the cardholder wants their spouse, kid, etc to charge on their acct just add them as a authorized user and they'll be able to sign their own name.
  6. i agree.

    eta: plus, N.M. has a open return policy now. they can accept a return even if it was from 7 years ago. so i am not sure why'd they would deny this woman's return. even if it was a million dollar jewelry set, they should do the return.
  7. If that is their policy, then I think this woman will win the case. In addition to the SA allowing unauthorized card use.
  8. If you read the article, the suit was filed in Sept. 2010 so, it's not that untimely of a return. From the sound of the accident, she was badly injured and the other driver, who was texting was killed. I got that info from the comments after the CNN article, so take that with a grain of salt.
  9. Ugh that would suck! I hope that's never happened to people on this thread! That worries me. If someone wants a personal shopper and the SA uses the persons CC! That is wrong! As for family shopping without a card? No! Never! I didn't know they could do that! I hope not!
  10. I don't know anyone who has had an issue w/ NM randomly ringing up things and sending it. That's not what this is about. The woman accepted her DH's gifts for years, until she realized he was cheating.
    It's not about siding w/ NM, or anyone really. It's about being objective about it. And just because some people don't agree, doesn't make them wrong. None of us are involved 1st hand w/ privvy info. We're all just chatting/judging based on what the media has reported.
    There's a lot of "alleged" info, we'll find out how it all really went down eventually I guess.
  11. On another note, this Favi person sounds like a prostitute of sorts... giving it up for commission ($$$).

  12. I've done this with Nordstrom

  13. :yes:

  14. :roflmfao:
  15. The difference with the charge send is that you GAVE your authorization. In this case, Ms. Walker did not give any authorization. I can't believe the SA is still employed by NM. The other part of the story that is sad is the fact that the "gifts" were not even something Ms Walker liked. It's like they just racked up purchases for the commissions. At least he didn't take all her money, but I see a Lifetime movie out of this.