At&t being butt heads? Chp # 7

[Bell30656]

What AT&T did was tell the OP that they were willing to continue providing him service, HOWEVER under the additional terms that if he dropped service there would be an ETF just as in the original contract and that there would be no extensions made on payment due date.

Do those two terms sound unreasonable? What the OP wants is to go month to month, still be allowed to pay his/her bill late and not have an ETF if they decide to dump AT&T. AT&T gave him time to make up his/her mind and let them know. The OP refuses the new terms so he/she will be looking for a new provider.

If the OP simply stays with AT&T, pays his/her bill on time everything will be just fine. I am AT&T customer and because the telephone that I have would not work on any other network I elected to stay with them. I received a similar letter stating that the ETFs agreed upon in the first account number would move over to the new and there would be no extensions on the payment due date. I simply continue service with AT&T and PAY ON TIME.

The ETF were not pre-filing because the OP continues to use the service post-filing. You can't have your cake and eat it to.

and have stated in a letter if I continue to use them "I will be REQUIRED" to continue to obyed by the OLD Contract Terms. They also stated I AM RESPONBILE FOR ETF Fees even if i cancelled...

AT&T Also goes ahead and states that I will NO Longer be able to make any type of payment arrangements on my account

Since I AM NO LONGER responsible for the account above I am wanting to go month to month on my agreement.. AT&T Has been not cooperative with this and I am asking for assistance.

[toilettrash]

What AT&T did was tell the OP that they were willing to continue providing him service, HOWEVER under the additional terms that if he dropped service there would be an ETF just as in the original contract and that there would be no extensions made on payment due date.

Do those two terms sound unreasonable? What the OP wants is to go month to month, still be allowed to pay his/her bill late and not have an ETF if they decide to dump AT&T. AT&T gave him time to make up his/her mind and let them know. The OP refuses the new terms so he/she will be looking for a new provider.

If the OP simply stays with AT&T, pays his/her bill on time everything will be just fine. I am AT&T customer and because the telephone that I have would not work on any other network I elected to stay with them. I received a similar letter stating that the ETFs agreed upon in the first account number would move over to the new and there would be no extensions on the payment due date. I simply continue service with AT&T and PAY ON TIME.

The ETF were not pre-filing because the OP continues to use the service post-filing. You can't have your cake and eat it to.

I DO AGREE with what you said; so here is my question since I wrote them and not agreeing to the terms I could walk away and basically away without att and they cant hold me responsible for the etf then correct? I dont mind leaving them. I want to go to prepaid

[HMT]

Well, I think you'd be responsible if it is past the time which you had to let them know you did not agree to the terms. Did they give you a time frame?

Let's get a little perspective here, even if you did walk away what's the big deal? Yes, it will go to collections but do you really think they will sue? We are talking about $146 here that's less than the cost of the lawyer. Even if they did decide to waste their money and sue you it's $146 you could pay it before any court dates come your way easily. Yes, it will be on your credit report for 7 years but the BK is there for 10 years as long as the rest of your report is getting cleaned up I fail to see how this one item which you are disputing with at&t is going to sink you again.

You're looking at this from a personal level, this is just business to at&t. Dial back the emotion and look at this as it is: A cell phone company wants to do to you what it does with every other client and you don't want them to. Your only options are to cancel and go prepaid or deal with it for two years and then cancel and go prepaid.

[justbroke]

The ETF were not pre-filing because the OP continues to use the service post-filing. You can't have your cake and eat it to.

If the debtor actually "signed" or asked for a new contract, that would be true. If upon the debtor filing bankruptcy, the creditor, suoa sponte (on it's on accord), canceled the old account and created a new account... that can't obligate the debtor to the terms of the new contract just because it's a new contract. The terms should be the same as before. The whole purpose of closing out the old account is only for accounting purposes! The closing out of an old account is not required from bankruptcy. The only thing that the bankruptcy discharge requires, is that you don't collect on the old debt.

I just don't see how the debtor is obligated unless they asked for a new account and agreed to the terms. So much so, that AT&T itself is VERY VERY particular about how they validate the terms with any person adding a phone line to their account to make sure they understand the terms.

I would love to litigate this pro se in the Bankruptcy court. I would have fun and probably would have yet another complaint (adversary proceeding/AP) won without even stepping foot inside the court.

I might be wrong, but hey... I'd still like to fight it in court.

[Bell30656]

The really muddy area on this is that the OP is still using the service AFTER the date of filing. AT&T has sent him/her a new term. I believe that if he/she refuses the new term they may be able to negotiate a consensual termination.

However, just to muddy the waters, the OP has continued to use the service which could be seen as agreeing to the terms.

OP, mention the situation to your attorney. You are paying him/her big bucks. If you are able to keep AT&T you are better off than going to pre-paid. They cost more especially for the phones.

[justbroke]

Yes, it is muddy, but from a contractual standpoint, it's clear to me. The discharge doesn't create a new agreement. It's no different, to me, than assuming an executory contract inside bankruptcy (which you could argue that a "contract" with a cellular provider, is an executory contract). Assuming it does not create a new contract and new terms. It only continues the old contract and the old terms.

That AT&T -- or any contract holder -- closed the old account and opened a new one for accounting purposes, doesn't change the terms of the original contract.

Now, I will add this. I have called AT&T during my Chapter 7 and forced them to remove the contract from one of my phones (my first iPhone). I don't think AT&T knew that I was in bankruptcy, but regardless, they do have the capability to remove contract terms from any line and mark them as satisfied. (And, it was on an iPhone I had for only 2-3 months.)

[Pandora]

From what I'm reading - it appears that the OP was still UNDER contract and not month to month - and when they included AT&T in their filing, they did so to get out of the contract, thereby eliminating the ETF as well as the contract. However, AT&T had the right to send a new contract if the OP wanted to keep their service, therefore the OP would have to agree to new terms under a new contract, not necessarily under a new account number as the phone number and everything else would remain the same. If not, then OP would have to find another servicer to provide them with service.

As far as the account number changing - our account number didnt change either except the last 2 numbers went from 01 to 02 - (sub-account) due to BK. We were however already month to month when we filed (and we are with Verizon) but our lawyer submitted paperwork just the same as notification to Verizon because that way if we wanted out of the contract (if we'd had one), the ETF would be wiped out. However in doing so, Verizon would/could require us to put a security deposit and resign a new contract to keep our original phone lines - or we could opt to go with another servicer or pre-paid.

[Bell30656]

The OP essentially agreed to the terms dictated by AT&T by continuing to use the service. Just as you are not required to sign an agreement with them, your use of the service indicates your agreement with their terms. Read all that fine print they send in the bill and have on their websites.

At present time unless I'm misreading the OP is STILL using the service. I think that AT&T offering to continue the contract on the old terms is generous. Any other provider is going to ask for a security deposit.

OP, I believe if you are indeed wanting to get out of the contract you will need to write them, telling them that you do not accept the new terms and most importantly you will need to cease using their service.

[justbroke]

I would love for this to have happened to me. That's all I'm saying. Call me litigious, but sometimes, these utility companies are too overbearing.

There used to be an old saying... "there are two people you don't mess with. The government and Ma Bell (AT&T)."

[BCA2009]

The OP essentially agreed to the terms dictated by AT&T by continuing to use the service. Just as you are not required to sign an agreement with them, your use of the service indicates your agreement with their terms. Read all that fine print they send in the bill and have on their websites.

At present time unless I'm misreading the OP is STILL using the service. I think that AT&T offering to continue the contract on the old terms is generous. Any other provider is going to ask for a security deposit.

OP, I believe if you are indeed wanting to get out of the contract you will need to write them, telling them that you do not accept the new terms and most importantly you will need to cease using their service.

I totally disagree, how many people on this board continue to live in their house and pay their mortgage but did not re-affirm and have the right to walk away. It's no different. The liability from the old contract was discharged, unless you agree to the new contract. The action of sending them a payment to maintain monthly service doesn't re-activate the old liability.

Fine print doesn't mean anything if it is contridicted by Federal or State law. The fine print also says to disregard any portion of the contract that is invalid under the law.

[justbroke]

I totally disagree, how many people on this board continue to live in their house and pay their mortgage but did not re-affirm and have the right to walk away. It's no different.

Join the club!

[Bell30656]

He/she is continuing to utilize the service. These are now post-filing obligations. Every call after that date of filing has a charge associated with it just as continuing to use a credit card after the date of filing would have. Is a cell phone considered a utility? They are not necessary.

Maybe AT&T won't go after the charges but will you ever be able to get service with them again? I would much rather have a nationwide post pay plan than any pay by the month pre-pay cell phone plan.

Just a note, even though I did not discharge any utilities and was current on them, my utility company required a deposit for me to continue service post-filing. (Here all of our utilities; gas, electric, trash, water, sewer, cable, internet are from the same company and are on the same bill.) My option was to pay it or be in the dark without water.

Justbroke, the difference is they have sent terms to continue receiving the service. If use is continued the terms will be agreed upon.

[justbroke]

Justbroke, the difference is they have sent terms to continue receiving the service. If use is continued the terms will be agreed upon.

I will agree that usage is post-petition and the billing for charges incurred are at the person's expense.

I just don't agree that somehow, AT&T can obligate the person to new contract terms, solely because of the bankruptcy. You can't obligate a debtor to the terms of a new contract, when the creation of the new contract is solely at the whim -- or administrative actions -- of the creditor. Just doesn't work like that in contracts.

There are no "new" terms. There are only the original terms. Every time I make a call on my cellular phone does not re-obligate me to new terms.

I guess we're just on opposite ends of the issue. If cellular companies could get away with what you suggest, Every time your contract was up, they'd just "renew" it and start a new early termination fee period.

[Pandora]

I just don't agree that somehow, AT&T can obligate the person to new contract terms, solely because of the bankruptcy. You can't obligate a debtor to the terms of a new contract, when the creation of the new contract is solely at the whim -- or administrative actions -- of the creditor. Just doesn't work like that in contracts.

Justbroke - but lets say the OP still had 1 year left on a 2 year contract they signed, and included it in BK to get out of the contract (and therefore the EFT); if they did that, then wouldnt a new contract have to be signed if the OP wanted to keep using the services?

Its how our attorney explained it to us - which thankfully, we were already month-to-month - so none of it applied although we did have to give a courtesy notification to Verizon that we were filing, otherwise everything else for us stayed the same. However IF we had been under contract still and wanted out of it - then Verizon would've been allowed to re-issue another contract for us to sign, along with a required security deposit, thereby reinstating a new ETF on the new 2 year contract, if we wanted to continue to use their services.

??

I understand what you're saying - but I dont think thats the case here given the OP opted to bug out of his contract early through the means of BK.

[justbroke]

Justbroke - but lets say the OP still had 1 year left on a 2 year contract they signed, and included it in BK to get out of the contract (and therefore the EFT); if they did that, then wouldnt a new contract have to be signed if the OP wanted to keep using the services?

I think I'm being hypertechnical, but technically, the contract is an executory contract and the debtor continues to use it so he just continues the existing contract (known as assumption). If s/he had 1 year left on it, s/he still has one year left on it. What gets discharged is the amount due on that contract. The entire thing with a new bill, is just an accounting procedure for the creditor to avoid violating the stay in any manner.

Yes, I think the OP is really has a different problem. If they actually had 1 year left on the contract, the only way to get out would be to REJECT the entire contract in the bankruptcy, and move on (hopefully to a new carrier).

I think of the Bankruptcy of a utility contract just keeps the status quo, but there are some special things a utility can do with regard to deposits (11 USC 366). Unless you totally reject the contract and cancel the service, the terms of the pre-petition contract continue.