Our washer and dryer are 11 yrs old and I dread the day one or both need replacing, because the newer appliances are, the junkier they are, no matter what you pay. Yes, if you can get the part and fix it yourself, do. We've fixed our washer. It was inexpensive and the actual repair was easy, even if getting at it wasn't easy. This is one thing you can't always blame on cheap junky imports, because these are American co's who are lowering their standards, and often getting them made overseas anyway despite the American brand. Forget the fancy features, get plain and basic and if you can find it, well made. Then at least if it does compeletely die in 18 months you are only out a few hundred, not a few thousand. A friend of mine bought the fancy high efficiency washer and says it has a terrible design flaw...it holds water somewhere in there that goes stagnant so it and clothes washed in it always stink, no matter how many times she bleaches it, cleans it, etc. She can't wait for it to die.

The banking and real estate industry took out the economy and the perpetrators like CEO's of these big co's, are getting bailouts and tax breaks instead of prison sentences. Small potato crooks in these industries have on occasion been sentenced for criminal mortgage fraud, but big co's doing the same things pay fines if anything happens at all, and get out of it. Many homebuilders who operated in house mortgage co's during the bubble were fined millions, then turned to Countrywide as their affiliated lender, which of course as pointed out, was bought by B of A.

In the early 2000s I was doing research for a consumer group and noticed that mortgage fraud was huge, and not much was being done about it. There were documents like this from the FBI stating 80% of mortgage fraud was done by industry insiders. http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/fcs_report2005 Also in the early 2000s, the agency asked for more resources to fight it, warning it could take out the economy, and was refused.

Meanwhile the media did and continues to give air time to real estate shills who tell viewers that it's a great time to buy a house. IF I ever buy again i may pay cash, as the main reason right now that's stopping me from buying again is the rampant fraud in the mortgage industry.

You could end up having more legal leverage without the warranty. Most home warranty policies exclude coverage for nearly everything, plus contain an arbitration clause that takes away your right to sue over denied claims. Disputes over claim denials are instead taken to arbitration, with an arbitration firm the warranty co no doubt has an ongoing relationship with...an obvious potential for bias. There is more about home warranties and arbitration on hadd.com a consumer advocacy site, and also Public Citizen has done two reports now on arbitration abuses in housing/warranties. The latest one was called Home Court Advantage and is on fairarbitrationnow.org as well as citizen.org. At least with there being no warranty in place, you might have some legal recourse against the folks that told you a "warranty" was included. Good luck.

IMO, the fact congress gave these crooks a bailout instead of conducting an investigtion is proof that there is WAY too much corporate infuence over govt. These industries created an artificial housing bubble and took out the economy and they are being rewarded with OUR money, many of us whom didn't even get involved in real estate during the past few maniacal years. There were plenty of warnings for govt to have seen this was a sham...everyone from the FBI to bloggers and everyone in between saw it coming and warned. For anyone in the industry or govt or any of the talking heads on MSNBC, FOX, etc, to say no one could've seen this coming is ludicrous.

sonneillon, re: your statement, "It is really hard to get disbarred for ethical violations." I agree.

We hired a lawyer a few years back to represent us in a construction defect case. He did no work, lost one of our payments, lied to us by claiming the othr side's attorneys had not contacted him when they had, failed to negotiate a settlement or even make contact with the other side (which is what we wanted him to do), nearly missed our statute of limitations, then forged our signatures and had his assistant notarize them. We filed a bar complaint which resulted only in a private reprimand. (The bar's general counsel has since resigned in a sex scandal) Years later, after at least one other serious complaint, he was suspended but only for one year. The lawyer he still works with and is "overseen" by? His mother!

That these arbitrators are subject to even LESS oversight says a lot. And one of the owners of a construction arbitration company was twice disbarred, but was nevertheless practicing law as an arbitrator. Many homeowners lost when they should not have in those arbitrations. We only were able to pursue our case by getting out of arbitration, which was very difficult to do.

Having problems submitting so this may be a duplicate...sorry.

Many in the real estate and mortgage industries SHOULD go to jail. Some apparently less well connected ones are. But when it's a big company, they often pay inconsequential fines without admitting wrong-doing.

There seems to be a pervasive attitude in corporate thinking that it's good business practice as long as it's profitable AND you get away with it. Too many American citizens are resigned to this. And when they do speak up they're considered rabble rousers or nuts. Consumers and consumer org's were reporting on these types of fraud years ago, even issues as serious as forged documents, etc. Little was done to help them, but now that banks and investors have been harmed, it's "mortgage fraud" and something may be done. It was fraud when it was just consumers getting burned too.

Consumers didn't invent toxic loans and aggressively push them, nor did they sell the bad loans as investments, etc. This was industry doing. In fact the FBI reported two yrs ago that 80% of mortgage fraud was done by insiders. While I certainly don't defend any consumer who knowingly went along with fraud, or who threw caution to the wind even though they had the information necessary to avoid problems, who is the burden on to be a "professional?" Aren't the professionals in the industry at least as obligated to do their due diligence? Are they not the ones with the education, training, credentials, etc, to make loans? Personal responsibility should extend to "persons" working for companies, too, not just consumers.

From what I've been told by attorneys and read in cases and law articles, simply scratching out a clause in a contract or making a notation on a check doesn't make it unenforceable. Both sides have to have negotiated it and signed, in general. There are exceptions but from what I've seen the exceptions seem to favor the corporate side, not the consumer side. E.g. warranties on new cars, new houses, new computers, cell phones, medical care, credit card, etc, may not be negotiable in any way. They come with the product or service, period. Somtimes the piece of paper with the arb clause isn't even seen before purchase. I've seen some recent decisons on home warranty arbitration clauses that said it was unenforceable. But it's still really hard to get out of it.

Consumers have to be willing AND ABLE to refuse to make a deal unless the seller waives the arbitration agreement. You can still be forced into it against all protestations, if it's a product or service you MUST have, and if there is no alternative in the market to choose from, and no negotiation possible. Always try to get the clause stricken but do not assume you can. The Arbitration Fairness Act would make such clauses unenforceable, and still allow people to choose to arbitrate after a dispute arose, if both sides wanted to. That's fair. Forcing consumers is not. That's why this bill needs to be passed.

That said, I hope that efforts to educate consumers on arbitration will follow. If they're coerced into thinking arbitration is going to be 'fair, fast, and cheap,' after a dispute arises, the end result will be much the same as if they were forced due to a clause in a contract. However, I do think word will get around to "not pick arbitration" if this is the case.

Yes, SAVDAVID, this is how it often turns out, and contractors know the legal system better than they know construction. It would have come out no better in arbitration, as one still has to collect thru the courts if the contractor won't pay a judgment/award. It's easy to see why lawyers usually refuse to take these cases; it's just too much work for too little money in their minds. Contractors know that, too. I also have an elderly mom who's vulnerable to scams and doesn't have the energy to stand up for herself. It's no wonder seniors are targeted.

A person would have to learn the applicable creditor's recourse, such as attaching assets, garnishment, etc. As a winner in a case, you are a creditor. Another problem is that the contractor may live lavishly and own many companies, but the company that owes you is "broke," or he folded it. The courts often won't let you go after his other companies, or him personally.

It's a wonder tort reform ever got any foothold, given that the real life scenario for anyone trying to get justice is quite differeent from tort reform's claim that it's too easy to sue, and everyone collects huge undeserved awards. Perhaps if everyone in the country had had to sue a contractor, tort reform propaganda would never have fooled so many.

Yes, the person who said you can't sue if there's an arbitration clause is right. Those clauses should be avoided like the plague. Arbitrators do repeat business with the industry and there's too much chance for bias. It can also be expensive.

I've been through a construction defect case with damages well over $100,000, (that I managed to recover). I WISH I'd have been able to just go to small claims!

That said, there are some assumptions about the legal system get consumers in trouble.

One is that you can take a case all the way to court based on principle, or that settling isn't "taking it all the way." Sure, you CAN spend more and go to civil court, if you have lots of time and money and don't mind the risk. Real court is also much more formal, and takes far more than a few hours of research to do it right. Self representation in real court is not recommended.

FLCONSUMER did go all the way IMO because he recovered quite a bit of money and avoided spending more to fight his case. Settling isn't selling out. It's reality.

But, FLCONSUMER said he didn't list his evidence because it wasn't a criminal case and he wanted to ambush them. Actually, most if not all civil courts also require disclosure of evidence, witness list, etc. Maybe his small claims court is different but in "real" court, it's under the state and federal rules of civil procedure, under "discovery." They don't allow "ambush" anymore.

RE contractor recovery funds: the homeowner would've still had to get a court or arbitration award to collect on the fund most likely.

GODAWGS7 asked about suing an out of state co for illegally spamming his phone. While I don't know a lot about "anti spam laws," or "do not call laws," if you're going to sue someone out of state, a "long arm statute" allows you to if they did business or had contact in your state.

Most warranty co's operate similarly. They are Risk Retention Groups (RRG's) which escape most if not all state insurance regulation. Because they typically contain a binding mandatory arbitration clause, disputes go into private, and often biased, proceedures which hide complaints from the public. Even if the consumer "wins" they may get a fraction of their damages, and arbitration itself can have many hidden fees. The policies tend to have many exclusions and exceptions, offering what lawyers call illusory coverage, that is not allowed of insurance companies. Warranty co's may claim in marketing materials to be "insurance" but unless they are, or are backed by a true insurance co, they are NOT insurance. Some case law says that if they act like insurance they will be regulated as insurance, but don't count on it. You will need to find out from your state's Insurance Dept if a particular "warranty company" is an RRG or is really insurance.

It's been said by consumer groups that warranty co's pay out far less than insurance co's do. I believe they pay a claim sometimes to keep from drawing attention as a total scam, but overall, I think the lawyers' word for them sums it up: ILLUSORY.