forgery

[tweeter]

What is the name of your state? WA
My wife and her mom opened a store on 2/1/03. They are now closeing the store and after they return their credit card scanner my wife began receiving calls from a company that said she owed them money. My wife told them she never signed a lease and asked for a copy. When the copy came it was my wifes name but her mom's hand writting. My wifes mom said she signed her name because she did not have good enough credit and we were on vacation at the time. Our only options now seem to be pay the money or charge her mother with forgery. Are there any other options?

 

[dequeendistress]

Is the cost of the item, worth criminal charges against her mother?

 

[tweeter]

Total cost to us would be over $2000 money we don't have to throw away because of her mistake

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

What is the name of your state? WA
My wife and her mom opened a store on 2/1/03. They are now closeing the store and after they return their credit card scanner my wife began receiving calls from a company that said she owed them money. My wife told them she never signed a lease and asked for a copy. When the copy came it was my wifes name but her mom's hand writting. My wifes mom said she signed her name because she did not have good enough credit and we were on vacation at the time. Our only options now seem to be pay the money or charge her mother with forgery. Are there any other options?

My response:

First of all, there was no forgery - - although you'd like to think so.

Wife and mother were in business together. In order to keep the store operating, they were each the "agent" for each other and, as such, had "IMPLIED" authority to act for one another. In other words, Mother was the alter ego of your wife while wife was away.

How would you have liked it if Mother didn't sign the credit lease, and lost sales as a result? Your "tune" would have been, "Why didn't you sign it? You're in business together! It was necessary!"

So, Mother was between a rock and a hard place, while the two of you were on vacation. What did you expect her to do - - just let the business go down the tubes while you were having fun in the sun?

Pay the debt. Your wife and her mother are on the hook jointly for the debt - - legally - - because they were partners.

IAAL

 

[tweeter]

my wife did not want the machine and told her mother this. She is being held accountable for her mothers actions alone as her mother did not sign the document anywhere with her own name. My wife is being held liable for the debt and not the store and you want me to think this is our fault? I can't see how it is legal for someone to use another persons credit, sign there name and not be held accountable

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

my wife did not want the machine and told her mother this. She is being held accountable for her mothers actions alone as her mother did not sign the document anywhere with her own name. My wife is being held liable for the debt and not the store and you want me to think this is our fault? I can't see how it is legal for someone to use another persons credit, sign there name and not be held accountable

My response:

I can thoroughly understand how it is that YOU can't understand this concept. That's why you came here, and that's why I'm trying to explain the "facts of life" to you.

First, you have no way of proving that your wife gave her mother those instructions. And, even if you can prove it, it wouldn't matter because . . .

Second, it doesn't matter that your wife signed the contract or not. The fact is, the two of them were partners in this business and, as such, they both had "ostensible authority" to act for each other. Each of them was the agent for the other for the good of, and for the survival of, the business!

Third, after your wife came back from vacation, and saw the credit machine, did she just think it "magically appeared" on the counter? No, of course not! As a matter of fact, your wife USED that credit machine for her customers. As such, she RATIFIED the contract by USING the machine for the business - - despite the fact that she never signed the actual contract.

Perhaps you didn't know it, but you don't have to sign a contract to be held to contractual terms. All that needs be shown is "performance" under the contract terms; e.g., they delivered the machine and kept it working, and your wife used the machine for her customers. That's it. It's called "ratification".

It wasn't until the business went "belly up" did your wife try to disavow the credit machine contract. But, because of all of the above, your wife and her mother are BOTH on the hook.

Believe me, you don't have a prayer in hell on this one. The best you can hope to do is sue the Mother for half. But, a judge is going to point out all of the above to your wife, and her mother, when you get in front of the court.

So, you can scream, jump up and down, stomp your feet, pound on your chest, and cry all you want - - but this is the way the cookie crumbles. There's no getting out of this, and there's no way of getting away without paying and being responsible. Go ahead and check out what I've said with your own attorney. He/She will tell you the same thing!

Best of luck.

IAAL

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My further response:

Indeed, where the principal (your wife) remains silent, knowing the agent (her mother) holds herself out to third persons (the credit card company) as clothed with certain authority from the principal, the principal's silence (by not returning the unit, or using the credit machine) may give rise to liability. [Leavens v. Pinkham & McKevitt (1912) 164 Cal. 245, 247-248, 128 P 399, 401-402; Preis v. American Indem. Co., supra, 220 Cal.App.3d at 761-762, 269 Cal.Rptr. at 623]

An ostensible agency relationship subjects the principal (your wife) to third party liability as if an "actual agency" had been created unless the third person (the credit card company) knows the agent (the Mother) has not actually been employed to act on behalf of the principal in the matter. Thus, the principal is bound by the conduct of a and agent acting under "ostensible authority" to those third persons who "incurred a liability or parted with value" in the good faith belief [her mother] was the principal's agent in the matter. [see Kaplan v. Coldwell Banker Residential Affiliates, Inc. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 741, 747-748, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 640, 642-643]

Even unauthorized acts may be binding upon a principal who has ratified the agent's acts. [Caro v. Smith (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 725, 731, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 306, 310] - - in other words, although your wife did not sign the contract, she ratified it by voluntarily participating in the use of the machine and not immediately returning it when she first discovered its existence in the store.


This is the type of thing that can happen when two people who start a business fail to have a written contract between them, laying out each person's rights and responsibilities. But then you say, "For God's sake, this was her mother. My wife and her mother shouldn't have to have a written contract between them - - they should be able to trust each other."

Well, now you know that's the wrong way of thinking and that it was a big mistake not to have a partnership contract. Next time, your wife will know.

IAAL

 

[tweeter]

Thank you for your help. Wish things were different but this will not happen again. Thanks again.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Thank you for your help. Wish things were different but this will not happen again. Thanks again.


======================================

My response:

I wish things were different for you to, under the law. But, it's a bitter pill to swallow.

Did you show your wife this thread? Does she understand what I've said, and the concepts of the controlling law?

Has she decided to go after her mother for half in Small Claims court?

It may not be the best time to say this, but try to have a happy Holiday season. To get you into a better mood, you might want to read a few of my Top Ten lists. They're pretty funny. You'll find them listed on the various forums.

Good luck.

IAAL