A Bracelet With Too Few Carats, and Credit Card Firm Carries No Stick

Q I’m having a credit card problem that I feel is taking excessively long to settle. Using my Visa card, I bought a bracelet in Alaska that I later had appraised and that turned out to have fewer carats than the merchant claimed. I called the credit card company in August, and they advised me to return the bracelet, which I did. My card still hasn’t been credited for the3,255 I paid, and it has accumulated $160 in finance charges. I have talked to 12 people at the credit card company regarding this problem but could never get through to anyone in authority; every time I ask for a supervisor, I’m told one is not available. I even tried calling the merchant and asking him to return the bracelet so we could put the whole matter behind us, but he hung up on me.

*

A One of the advantages of having a credit card is supposed to be the mediator role the issuer will play; in other words, there’s someone between you and the merchant who can help settle disputes. This one should have been easy: You returned the merchandise, and your account should have been credited. Instead of prompt resolution, however, you got the runaround.

Time to bring in the big guns.

Because your credit card issuer is a subsidiary of a national bank, you can contact the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which regulates national banks, at (800) 613-6743. The Federal Trade Commission also might be able to help. Its Web site is at https://www.ftc.gov, and its phone number appears in the federal government listings of your local phone book.

Once the problem is resolved, seriously consider transferring your business to another credit card company. A business that treats its customers this badly shouldn’t be rewarded by your continued patronage.

I hope you’ll also contact the Better Business Bureau in Alaska; its number in Anchorage is (907) 562-0704. It’s doubtful your shifty merchant is a member, but your complaint might prevent other unsuspecting souls from doing business with him--assuming they check the bureau first, which is the smart thing to do with any major purchase. In the future, it might be best to buy fine jewelry from someone who’s been long established in your community. If nothing else, it’s easier to picket a local company should it do you wrong.

Living Trust and Confidentiality

Q As I understand it, a living trust is supposed to be a completely private document designed to avoid probate. Would it be possible for a very close relative, one who is specifically eliminated as a beneficiary in the trust, to sue to have the trust made public and reviewed by a court after the death of the grantor? Is there anything that can be done to avoid this?

*

A Living trusts are not completely private. Once any part of the trust become irrevocable--typically, when either spouse dies--California law requires that copies of that part of the trust be sent on request to beneficiaries and heirs-at-law. Heirs-at-law are the people who would have inherited had there been no will or trust.

If somebody sues, the trust could become a public document if it is entered in the court record.

If you’re already anticipating such a brouhaha, that’s a pretty good sign that you need to get yourself to an experienced attorney who specializes in estate planning, particularly if it’s a case in which a disinherited relative is expected to cause problems. There are ways to make the relative’s fight expensive and unlikely to succeed, which should reduce his or her incentive to take on the battle. One frequently used clause, for example, provides that if someone challenges the trust and loses, any bequests that would have been given to the troublemaker are returned to the estate and divided among the other heirs. Of course, this won’t work if you want to completely disinherit someone, but it can discourage greedy beneficiaries who feel they deserved more.

Some attorneys also videotape the execution of the trust to prove that their clients understood what they were doing and that they weren’t under any undue influence. People who attack a will or trust generally use the argument that the maker was mentally incapacitated or unfairly swayed by a favored beneficiary.

This is not the type of thing to try to handle with a kit or a cut-rate legal service. If there’s anything worth fighting over, and if anyone is inclined to fight, the money you spend upfront on a good living trust document will save your rightful heirs buckets of money in the long run.

20 Lashes: Money Talk columns are often written in advance. Efficient, no? Well, sometimes not. Last week’s column included a reference to the estate tax exemption, which was $650,000 when the column was written in December. As of Jan. 1, however, the exemption limit grew to $675,000. The limit is scheduled to grow each year until it reaches $1 million in 2006.

Liz Pulliam Weston is a personal finance writer for The Times and a graduate of the certified financial planner training program at UC Irvine. She will answer questions submitted--or inspired--by readers on a variety of financial issues in this column. She regrets that she cannot respond personally to queries. Questions can be sent to her at liz.pulliam@latimes.com or mailed to her in care of Money Talk, Business Section, Los Angeles Times, Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA 90053. For past Money Talk questions and answers, visit The Times’ Web site at https://www.latimes.com/moneytalk.