Woman Sues Neiman for 1.4 million...

  1. #1 May 30, 2012
    Last edited: May 30, 2012
    Here is a link to the article:


    Sex, money, shopping and betrayal spurred a woman scorned to file suit against Neiman Marcus after the luxury retailer, known for its generous return policy, refused to take back $1.4 million worth of merchandise.
    During the three years Patricia Walker spent bedridden recovering from a traffic accident, her then-husband Robert Tennison's spending spiked at the retailer's Dallas location. He showered her with an outsized pile of gifts. But all the while, according to the suit, he was allegedly carrying on a secret affair with Favi Lo, his wife's trusted Neiman Marcus personal shopper.
    Lo earned a steep commission from the sales, which were made using Walker's account, her attorney, Mark Ticer, said.
    He noted a correlation between the spike in sales from 2007 to 2010 and the affair.
    "Ms. Walker had no idea it was going on at all. She was in the perfect spot to be vulnerable after the horrible accident," he said.
    In 2010, Walker wanted to return the haul of luxury goods to the store, which is known for its generous return policy.
    Neiman Marcus sent employees to look at the merchandise Walker had requested to return, but the store never followed through or offered an explanation for not taking the items back, Ticer said.
    Neiman Marcus declined ABCNews.com's request and that of ABC affiliate WFAA for comment and cited the ongoing litigation.
    The bonanza of luxury goods, from $285 pajamas to crystal sculptures and enough jewelry to fill a store's display case, now sits unused in storage. Much of it isn't even Walker's taste, Ticer said.
    Walker spent $100,000 per year before her accident at the retailer. Her husband's spending on her account outpaced her spending by hundreds of thousands of dollars, Ticer said.
    Still unaware of her husband's affair with Favi Lo, Walker closed her account in 2010. She learned of her husband's relationship with Lo a few months later while engaged in divorce proceedings, Ticer said.
    For Walker, the lawsuit is about more than just getting her money back.
    "The real villain in this case is Neiman Marcus," Ticer said. "After learning of this affair decided they weren't going to do anything about it."
    Ticer said Lo was not disciplined and continues to work at the retailer's NorthPark Mall location. An attempt to reach her for comment was unsuccessful.
    "It's a sad story about breach of trust and profits over people," Ticer said. "And Neiman Marcus isn't taking responsibility.
    The upscale chain's return policy is: " If for any reason you are not satisfied, we will gladly accept your timely return of unworn, unwashed, or defective merchandise. Returned merchandise should include the vendor packaging and tags and be in the same condition as when it was received. Used merchandise cannot be returned unless defective. A pickup and/or restock fee may apply."
  2. I wish people would post the story too so we don't have to click away *sigh*

    Anyhoo. . . it's ridiculous to sue NM because they won't let you return gifts. She's projecting. It's literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts. Get back at the cheating DH, not NM.
  3. Reposted it with words. It would not let me do it earlier, but I got it now.
  4. But, the husband was using his wife's NM card. Unless he was an authorized user, I don't think that is allowed.
  5. I think it's allowed. My girlfriend uses her DHs, she doesn't have one.
    The ex wife is scorned, mad at wrong people IMO though.
  6. I agree.

    If she wanted to recoup the costs, she should go after the ex.
  7. How ridiculous.
  8. Um, no, the real villain is the cheating ex-husband, and to a lesser extent, the SA mistress. It's not the store's job to mediate or meddle in your personal affairs (literally, in this case). If the purchase falls within the store's return policy, then there's no reason why they shouldn't take it back. If not, then there is no reason why they should bend the rules, and probably take a loss, just because the circumstances surrounding the purchase was unsavory.

    The article doesn't mention the wife protesting much when the husband presented her with all those gifts during those three years. If she didn't want them, she should have told him to return them when he gave them to her, not three years later. Also, even if the account was in the wife's name, I would be interested to know who was responsible for paying the bill, the wife or the husband?
  9. It smacks of fraud that the NM employee was getting hefty commissions, and NM should have given a reason for refusing the returns.
  10. Oooh! When I read this I thought to myself, this HAS to be in Dallas & I thought of northpark mall specifically!

    I think I was right!
  11. I was thinking downtown! I'll have to actually read it instead of skim it :amuse:
  12. It says specifically that she still works at NorthPark, maybe she helped me Tues? lol!
  13. This and the fact that the charge account did not belong to the husband. My DH has an Amex in his name only and I can't charge on it. YOu can't go into a bank and WD money from an account that you don'tsign on. Same with a charge account, unless you are an authorized signer.
  14. not really though. My 11 year old uses my credit card from time to time. My BFF uses her DH's NM card since she doesn't have one and she's not on his account.

    It really shouldn't be about that anyhow. She's scorned. She is trying to get revenge on the wrong peeps.
  15. I've used my BF's card at NMs, no problem. I think the 1st time I used it and he wasn't there, they called to get his approval. From then on, I've never had a problem.

    I'm sure all the ladies that shop at NM, will be putting Favi on their "don't shop with her list" and keep a close eye on their husbands.