Question about Cable Bill

Time Warner Cable is threatening to disconnect my mother's cable because of a bill that was in someone else's name. She had nothing to do with that contract but TW is saying that since she stayed in the house part of the time that she is responsible for the other person's defaulted account. Is this accurate or does she need to fight them on this and what would be the best way to do this?

She has been through a really bad time lately and I would appreciate any answers to help her resolve this.

Thank you!!!!

I don't understand. You need to better explain the entire situation.

Here is the background.

My brother moved in with my mother several years ago in Wilmington, NC.
He cancelled her cable and set up cable, telephone and internet (a bundle package) in his name at her address.
The cable company never questioned his right to set up the account.
He moved out of the house (he was arrested) and defaulted on the bill that was in his name.
She established a new account in her name and now the cable company is saying she has to pay them the amount that my brother defaulted on since she lived at the residence and "enjoyed" use of the cable.

Is she responsible for the balance on the account in his name? She never spoke to the cable company to order this nor did she sign any contract. I don't understand where Mom would be liable for my brother's account and that is why I am asking for more information.

Thank you.

Whether Time Warner is entitled to withhold cable service from her is governed by her contract with Time Warner. I'm not sure what that says about this situation, but I would not be surprised if Time Warner had the right to terminate her contract at any time for any reason.

That doesn't mean your mother is liable to pay your brother's account. I suspect she is not. It's in his name, and unless there's something more here, she cannot be forced to pay it. They couldn't sue her for the amount. But if she doesn't pay it, Time Warner might choose not to provide her cable anymore.

It sounds like a cash grab, frankly. Your mother might want to write Time Warner explaining the situation, pointing out that she did not use the cable while there and only lived there for a small portion of the time the bill was accumulated, and that Time Warner's claim has no legal basis.

Actually dee_dub, here's the issue - if brother moved in with the mother, canceled her cable but put it in his name, the cable company is saying that they are now sharing the cable even though it is a contract in his name and it is in her legal residence. The last part of the sentence is the key - they were providing service to her in her residence after she was a prior customer. They can go to court under the theory of "quauntum meruit" which means an unjust enrichment. It means that even if you don't have a contract with someone, there are times when equity demands that justice be done.

Here's their thought. She cancels cable. The cable still stays in the living room, not moved to his private bedroom. She obviously cancels because sonny boy is now on the contract and she can watch in her living room just the same as before - why else would she suddenly cancel the cable? In my opinion, this is a pretty good example of unjust enrichment if she claims she has nothing to do with this agreement, that happens to be in her house, that happens to be taken out right after she cancels her own cable service contract. See the point?

Good points. I was under the impression she did not benefit that much from the cable - I see I may have been mistaken.

He cancelled her cable, not her. Time Warner set up a whole new account in his name. At no point did they ever verify that he had the right to set up service at the residence. They just discontinued her account and set up a totally different account. He did not even have identification that showed he lived at her address. But they established service in his name. Then when he defaulted all of a sudden it becomes her problem when she never authorized any changes to her service in the first place. So I guess I don't understand why she is responsible for his contract just because she lived in her own home. She provided proof that he had been arrested and told them she wanted what ever they had set up to be removed from her home. She inquired why they have moved everything to his name without her permission and no one had any answers except that she owes them the money from his contract.