"MILWAUKEE — Oprah Winfrey's mother says she shouldn't have to pay a nearly $156,000 debt to a high-end fashion store because store officials shouldn't have extended credit to her.

Valentina Inc. alleges that Vernita Lee of Milwaukee racked up $155,547 in purchases and interest as of July 1. The company sued, saying Lee fell behind in minimum monthly payments of $2,000. O.O

Lee filed a counterclaim Friday contending that Valentina took advantage of her "lack of knowledge, ability, and-or capacity" when creating her credit account."

Ok..

I take it Oprah helps her mom buy the latest fashions. Great.. I can appreciate that. Maybe she gives her mom an "allowance" of sorts. The lady was a housemaid when Oprah was born, so heck- I mean, Oprah's just giving back, right?

Oprah isn't in any financial straights that we're aware of, so I would assume as long as mom is tight with the daughter, she'll keep getting money to buy herself the finest of the finest. Sweet.

So said department store (oh, FASHION store.. excuse me) extended this lady's line of credit.. to apparently more than most people make in one year... I would be willing to bet because the her daughter is probably the richest woman in the world. I mean $2,000 minimum monthly payments? Hell, that's pocket change!!

Why couldn't mommy pay anymore? She got greedy with her spending habit, and Oprah told her to take responsibility? Money was cut off, perhaps?

(It says here that Lee had an open-ended charge account with Valentina since January 2004, according to the recent civil case- where she had to pay $5,000 a month for a huge bill)

1.) I can't imagine what the hell kind of store gives such an absorbitant amount of credit (or says: Spend whatever the hell ya want!). Ok.. a rich person's store, but WOW.

"Oprah Winfrey's mother (say she) should not have to pay a high-end fashion store the more than $150,000 it says it is owed because the store extended credit despite knowing her troubles managing debt, according to a new court filing".

2.) Did they run a credit check on her? Or did they simply give her a pass because of who she was? Who opened the account? Was Oprah a co-signer?

The account is "unconscionable, and therefore, unenforceable because Valentina knowingly and unfairly took advantage of Lee's lack of knowledge, ability, and/or capacity when Valentina created the account," the civil lawsuit says.

3.) Who racked up the bill? The store didn't do it. Of course they want their money. How does a store take advantage of somebody with supposed lack of knowledge, ability, and/or capacity to .. what, exactly. Buy clothes? Figure out they cost money? This woman is 75 years old. What.. old ladies can't handle credit cards? I dunno.. somebody obviously has a deficiency in their mental capacity. I'm not sure if it's Oprah, mommy, or this damn store (where apparently it's not uncommon for women to rack up 6-figure charges on their accounts).

In her counterclaim, Lee, 73, is asking the court to rule in her favor and award her damages including twice the amount of any finance charge on the account, plus her attorney fees.

Yeah, good luck with that! I hope whatever she wins, she has to use to towards her debt. Let this be a lesson to stores stupid enough to give somebody credit because they've got famous relatives.