Washington Redskins Relent, No Longer Bankrupting Elderly Season Ticket Holder
Good news! The Washington Redskins are no longer suing a 72-year-old grandmother and real estate agent who was unable to pay for her season tickets after falling on hard times. The team has vacated the $66,364 judgment against her. Yay!
The team only took notice of her situation after her story appeared in the Washington Post on Thursday. Had she only explained her situation, this would never have happened. Never mind that she tried to do so repeatedly.
[Redskins General Counsel David] Donovan's e-mail began: "I was sorry to read in the Post your account of your financial difficulties that prevented you from being able to pay for your Redskins Club Seats in 2008. I wish that you had returned our calls in 2008 or reached out to me in response to the letters I and others had sent you and explained your situation. If that had happened, we never would have proceeded with the claim against you."
Hill said she phoned Donovan when she got home Friday night from a day at a real-estate office where she is trying to jump-start her flagging sales practice. She said she told Donovan that she had called the Redskins repeatedly and once drove to the team's ticket office at FedEx Field.
Hill said she had attempted to get a waiver of a year or two in her contract. "I must have talked to them eight or nine times," she said. "I talked to a number of different people."
Congratulations, Redskins, on being slightly less terrible than we thought you were earlier this week!
Redskins Tell Va. Grandmother She Doesn't Have to Pay $66,364 Judgment [Washington Post] (Thanks, G&A!)
PREVIOUSLY: Don't Have $5,300 For Season Tickets? The Washington Redskins Will Sue You Into Bankruptcy
(Photo: Linda Davidson - The Washington Post)
Post a comment
Comments:
Good thing that corporations' slide toward dickheadedness and evil has coincided with the rise of the Internet.
Now time for Congress to stop prostituting themselves to said corporations and we'll be set.
The power of the Interwebs wins again!
@JanDuKretijn: And if only owners (and organizations, like the ones that run events) would stop prostituting themselves to those same corporations in order to get naming rights deals, we would be really set. Because if the Redskins are evil, would the evil-by-association tag be applicable to FedEx since they paid to be associated with them? See how that works?
Any news as to who is going to be the john for Giants/Jets? I haven't heard anything as of yet.
This is great news! However, being less of a douche is not exactly redemption.
LOL so they're doing this because of the bad publicity, but still blaming her for it. Classy.
@JanDuKretijn: Slide into dickishness and evil? I don't think so. Corporations have always been like this, just how the stories are more widely published.
The lawyer was probably pissed because management yelled at him for saying they should drop an opportunity to make 62 grand.
Either that, or he was assured a large cut of the judgment...
@B: Yeah, they've only gotten worse. There used to be a human element to dealing with them before. This probably wouldn't have happened 10 years ago.
Exxon, on the other hand... They've always been dicks.
After I saw that story in the paper I knew there was no way that the redskins would hold on to that verdict. Kudos to the Washington Post for helping the woman.
Uhhh...why do you need a CONTRACT to buy freakin' football tickets? Obviously if you want season tickets then you'll have to buy them for the whole season. But why a CONTRACT?
So..... She breaks a contract she entered into of her own free will and is the good guy here?
@dreamsneverend: Football tickets prices are already outrageous. Seat Licenses and these long term contracts are just ridiculous.
"I wish that you had returned our calls in 2008 or reached out to me in response to the letters I and others had sent you and explained your situation. If that had happened, we never would have proceeded with the claim against you."
Uh huh.
Minus several million points out of ten for dickishness.
WOW! Didn't the e-mail from Redskins General Counsel David Donovan make you feel all warm and fuzzy?
HELL NO! What a freaking douche bag! I can't believe he blamed the OP.
I believe the issue many people had was this lady had paid for these tickets each year since the 60's. She wasn't trying to default on her contract with the team, she was trying to work out a different arrangement since her financial situation had change drastically.
They told her no and then sued her in court for $$$ they knew she didn't have and money they wouldn't be out of in the future because they have 1000's of folks waiting in line to buy season tickets.
They weren't going to lose anything buy letting her out of her contract and letting the next person on their waiting list purchase "her" season tickets.
Their reason for suing her was to collect monies they wouldn't have been out of anyway. All they had to do was use their own waiting list.
THAT is the reason people think their assholes and the little old lady is the "good guy".
The judgment should have been vacated because the tickets were already resold so the team already got its money. If it had got the money from reselling the ticket and from the judgments it would have been a double dip.
Only the RIAA is allowed to do that.
@GMFish:
That might have some truth, but it's up to the defendant to raise the issue. In this case, God didn't want to her go to court, so they essentially get to do whatever they want.
As a side note, the Team itself doesn't get to vacate a judgment. That's a technical term for something that the court has the power to do. The team can either file a satisfaction of judgment saying it's simply been taken care of (and not actually collect) and it goes away, or they can file with the court and ask the judge to vacate the judgment and then voluntarily move to dismiss the case.
This is good. I'm going to out and buy a lot of things I can't afford, sign contracts and then, after public outcry, I won't be responsible for my debts.
Awesome.
The Redskins had every right to sue her, and its a shame they backed off.
David Donovan, Daniel Snyder and the Redskins organization are still wholly without class.
@mah4546: Why are you here? Every one of your posts thus far have been anti-consumer.
Maybe you should start your own site call The Anti-Consumerist.
@sleze69: You won't hear me argue. As much as I love the sport I will keep to buying one off games from scalpers and other sources.
@JanDuKretijn: Nah, the human element never really existed either. It's not like Standard Oil was known for its compassion. The companies of the robber baron era make this Redskins screw-up look like a cute little oopsie.
The squeaky wheel usually gets the grease. Only reason they relented was because she reached out to her neighborhood human-interest reporter.
@LuvJones: It seems to me that someone who doesn't bother to show up to court may be the same kind of person who doesn't make too much of an effort to work out a payment plan. I think age and gender are getting a lot of weight in this story.
If this had been a 40 year old Realtor who couldn't pay for the Escalade he had purchased in 2007, we wouldn't feel bad when it was repossessed. He may be on tough times, but these days, who isn't?
With that said, I think the real bad guy is the judge in this case. There's no way this woman's inability to pay for her season tickets caused the team $66,000 worth of damages. Any damages they incurred were minor, and she shouldn't be expected to give the Redskins an unearned windfall.
@Esquire99: Yes, she should have gone to court to raise the issue, but the judge should still make an equitable judgement.
@JennQPublic: Having something you bought repossessed is hugely different from having to pay $65000 because you /didn't/ buy something.
@Bogart's Falcon aka Philly Falcon: I sometimes wish there was an anti-heart I could click next to some people. Perhaps something we'll see in the new comment system!
I'm sorry, but I'm having a really hard time sympathizing with this lady. She entered into the multi year contract of her own free will, and then never showed up to the court case because she feels she needs to pay her debts.
Just because she is an old lady and is on hard times, doesn't automatically make her 100% free of any blame here.
Good for her for getting out of it, but I see this no different than any other contract one were to enter into.
@darkjedi26: I didn't say it wasn't. That doesn't mean that the public can't put pressure on a company to stop enforcing an unconscionable contract
The judge doesn't have a choice, though, because assuming all the Skins' pleadings were in order, he can't just adjust the amount of the judgment --the judge's hands would be completely tied even if (somehow) he knew these facts outside the pleadings. Remember, the judge can *only* act on the record before him or her. In this case, that was 100% Plaintiff. Take-away lesson--always respond to lawsuits.
I am as well. I'll bet someone lower down on their food chain is insulating the GC from these activities because of cases like this.
Now the GC is on the aware, I'll bet more cases will come under his scrutiny.
If not, then the GC was aware of this all the time.
From the article: "In the phone call, Hill said she told Donovan, 'I didn't go to The Post. The Post came to me.'"
It's funny how easy it was for the Post to reach her, when Donovan, who is supposedly overseeing these suits, did not know anything of her circumstances despite her 8-9 calls to appeal (and an in-person visit!)
This General Counsel sounds like a real jerk. Did you see how many people were affected in the article earlier this week, and did you read his responses to them?!
All of the "this old lady should pay her debts" commenters really should take a good look at that earlier Post article -- all 5 pages of it. Here, I'll make it easier: [www.washingtonpost.com]
@darkjedi26: Because, you know, businesses never break contracts with their customers when it is in their best interests. :-p
A contract can be broken if both parties agree to do it and sometimes that's the logical thing to do. In this case, the woman didn't have the money to buy the tickets. The tickets could easily be sold to someone else. There was no potential loss of profit if they allowed her to break the contract, and in fact, a financial incentive to let her off the hook.
This is akin to someone signing a contract to buy a particular house that was wanted by a hundred other people and then losing his job and being unable to follow through. When he says he can no longer buy it, the Realtor then insists that person go bankrupt rather than decide to simply tear up the contract and offer it to the people who are able to pay and anxious to buy it. What is the point of holding somoene's feet to the fire in this way besides a fear of setting precedent?
The bottom line is that this was about showing they'd fight such contract-breaking, not about treating a person humanely or even about money. Being absolute about such matters in the face of logic is a big problem with the way law works in the U.S. because of the heavy reliance on precedents when arguing cases in court.
@darkjedi26:
I agree 100%. Really all she had to do was show up to court and tell the judge that she understands that she breached the contract, but that it's not fair that they get to collect from her and re-sell them. Most judges, in the case of a pro-se defendant, will accept that as a proper argument for mitigation and grant an award taking that into account. So instead of a judgment for $66k, she might have only owed court costs (if that). Instead, she just ignored it. At that point, I lose all sympathy. The justice system doesn't work if people simply ignore summonses. In order to ensure people respond severe sanctions are imposed on those who don't.
That's good news. I still think all professional sports teams suck.
@watcher95: She tried to negotiate with them. Others did, too, and the company did. But they didn't with her. It's just another example of corporate irresponsibility ... in this case, lying and claiming she never tried to communicate. The fact it, it's nearly impossible to communicate with most corporations. Massive irresponsibility going on.
@Esquire99: Or they can file a stipulation that vacates it. I've seen it done. Maybe it's state specific.
Thats's great, but what about all the other people that are being sued for the same thing?
She was bankrupting herself. She purchased a luxury item she couldn't afford, and I hope to god that she learned her lesson.
@Bogart's Falcon aka Philly Falcon:
Win! I haven't followed this person's posts (I've probably just ignored them), but this is one of the best responses I've seen on Consumerist.
@The_IT_Crone: Holy crap I know. That was my first thought... Lets blame her but still offer to "help her out", then us douches won't look so bad because we can "claim" we didn't know her financial situation.
@Skaperen:
I still suspect the judge has to actually enter an order vacating the judgment based on the stipulation. I'd be shocked if the clerk had the ability to vacate a judgment without the judge entering an order.
This story also made waves on the offical fan site and it's forums. The outcry was pretty impressive, I am glad to see they finally let up and the right person in power got a clue was to what was happening.
I'm a little less ashamed to be a fan today.