The morality of not paying for debt after death.

[Edward The Head]

My mother died and left a bit of credit card debt. She had very little money. I have been put in charge of her estate. Yesterday I went to see a lawyer because there is just so much I don't understand.

Anyway, here's the debate. In the state of Maryland any debts must be recorded by the register of wills within six months. After which time no one can put a claim on the estate. Basically if the credit cards do not submit a claim to the courts in the next few months they will not be paid. From what I was told, by the lawyer, was that this is different then most states in which claims can come years later.

So basically, if the credit cards don't say anything soon they don't get their money and I don't have to pay. This to me seems at least a bit wrong, however I do know that the card companies have insurance or something like that to pay off people who don't pay or die and can't. So should I, or anyone have to worry about someone else's debt when they die? What's to keep me from going on a huge vacation if I know I'm going to die soon, charging it all and not paying?

And if anyone wants to either use my situation, my mother has around 5k in debt, and 6k in cash. I could pay the credit off, but then I would not be able to pay for the house before I get a chance to sell it so I could lose it. I was told that I could make minimum payments for a couple of months then let it go. Basically I can not, at this time pay anything off. Though when the house and other things are sold then I would be able to, but that will not be for at least six to seven months so they would be SOL.

[Kalhoun]

Well, there's another alternative. Make the house payments because it's a legitimate debt on her estate as well. Then pay off the credit cards. You can work out a deal with them. For a lousy $5k, they'll be more than happy to work a deal with you. My friend almost lost her mom's house because she was behind on her tax payment. Take care of that first.

Also, tap your brother and some other people for help in paying your mom's debts.

[Edward The Head]

I think you missed the point, if I pay the minimum on the credit cards, then in a couple of months stop paying, let the credit cards wonder why. Then after six months say screw it and never pay them back. This is what a lawyer told me yesterday. I wonder if he saw the look I gave him on that one.

See in Maryland, if anyone doesn't figure out someone is dead, in this case my mother, and any debt they have, the credit cards, they must let the courts know within six months. If they do not then they have zero claim on any money. What do I care if my mother's credit rating tanks? She can't use it. By doing this I keep $5000 for the estate and the credit cards are SOL.

The house is a different matter, though I can't remember exactly what. So I do have to make sure the house is paid for or we can lose it. The lawyer said this is common way to do things because Maryland is so different and most companies do not know it.

So, do I morally have to pay back the debt? Is it wrong to use the law to your advantage like this?

[brickbacon]

So, do I morally have to pay back the debt? Is it wrong to use the law to your advantage like this?

Is it morally wrong to claim bankruptcy? I don't think morality enters into the equation at all.

[Cheesesteak]

Morality enters into the equation if it differs from what is legal. If your mom borrowed money (she did) and promised to pay it back (she did) and her estate has the money to pay it back (it does, once the house is sold) then you should pay them back. Period.

Any other suggestion is just an attempt to rationalize taking someone's money. It might be legal, but that doesn't make it moral.

Now, I don't think you are under any requirement to screw up your own finances, or foul up the management of the estate in an effort to pay immediately, but you should pay when the estate has the money.

Bankruptcy is when you do not have the money to pay them back, it is a way to prevent debt from destroying your life, not a way to get out of paying back your debts.

[Captain Amazing]

There's a mechanism for the credit card company to collect on the debt, and that's filing a claim against the estate (as you mentioned in your OP). If they choose not to do that within the time period they have to do it, I can't see that you'd have any obligation to pay at all.

[dlack]

You should speak to your lawyer to be sure that what you're doing is legal. I'm just going to give my view of this morally.

The credit card company entered a contract with your mother, in full knowledge of the risk that she might die and they would never get their money. They were also fully aware of the laws that would apply if she did die, as they probably deal with this every day.

The credit card company didn't enter into any contract with you at all.

If the law says the money is yours and you follow the law to get it, you have no moral obligation to the credit card company.

I would say that it is the credit card company's responsibility to figure out whether their clients are dead. You shouldn't have any responsibility to them, as you have no contract with them. If you decide to make payments on your mother's debt for a certain amount of time, it's their problem if they use that information to assume she's alive. (Assuming the pay stub doesn't say "payment of this bill is proof that you're the cardholder and you're alive" or something.")

[Girl From Mars]

But don't you have an obligation to advise the credit card company of her death? It may be worth checking the terms and conditions of the card use before you decide to put this plan into action.

In addition, if you stop making any payments at all, within a couple of months you are likely to get a call from them querying the non-payment - at which point I suspect they may work out she's died.

I would contact the company and work out a way to pay the debt back once the estate has been settled - they may be used to dealing with this sort of situation.

[Edward The Head]

You should speak to your lawyer to be sure that what you're doing is legal.

I did, he's the one that actually told me to do this.

I would say that it is the credit card company's responsibility to figure out whether their clients are dead. You shouldn't have any responsibility to them, as you have no contract with them. If you decide to make payments on your mother's debt for a certain amount of time, it's their problem if they use that information to assume she's alive. (Assuming the pay stub doesn't say "payment of this bill is proof that you're the cardholder and you're alive" or something.")

But how does one go about finding this out? I would say it would be next to impossible to check every couple of months for every card holder. The checks I would be using though say Estate of Eddie's Mom so that should be some clue.

So then what about the other way. I do not have to pay the bills, except the house, until the estate is settled. Are the credit cards in the right to charge a missed payment, crank up the interest and whatever else they want making what would be owed hundreds more? I know that nothing can be done for at least a few months so the late fees would be $100 each card after four months give or take. I don't even want to think of what the interest might be at that time.

[zoltar7]

It seems to me that your duty as executor is to the estate, not to its creditors. So the moral thing to do is to use all legal means to maximize the value of the estate.

I would do as your attorney advises.

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

I don't think you have any moral obligation to pay the debt. Credit card companies are taking a risk on the unsecured credit they offer, and they more than make up for it with the usurious interest rates they charge.

However, the estate does have a legal obligation to pay its debts. Making minimum payments as the executor and then claiming that the CC companies are out of luck after 6 months strikes me as a possible attempt at fraud. If your attorney suggests this plan, though, then you're probably ok.

[Gorsnak]

Note that if there were any monies the CC company were legally but not morally entitled to (make up your own hypothetical scenario), they'd absolutely 100% guaranteed come after you for it. I see no reason to go beyond your legal obligations to them.

[Emerald Hawk]

I'm going to have to come down on the side of saying that this is immoral. I don't think the credit card companies are making a mistake in your favor, rather I think they just don't have all the information. Nor should they have the information, it would be unreasonable to expect them to be constantly checking up on every customer. By withholding this information, and actually continuing to make payments, you are attempting to decieve the company in order to trick them out of what is rightfully theirs (should they think to ask for it).

I'm trying to draw a distinction between this situation and one in which an actual mistake was involved, such as overpaying a bill. When one overpays a bill, it is one's own fault because one reasonably should have known what the correct amount to pay was. In this case the payee has no moral obligation to return the money (though they may have a legal one, depending).

I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the credit card should know that your mother is dead. This situation is more akin to overpaying your cable bill because the bill was lowered, but the cable company never informed you (let's assume they do not send out a new bill every month). Just because you don't ask them every month if the bill changed (why would you if it hardly ever changes), doesn't mean that you don't have a right to know this.

I don't think it's that badly immoral though. Minus 2 points or something.

This would be a good question for that ethics columnist who answers questions on NPR. Can't remember his name...

[NurseCarmen]

You go on ahead and act morally the moment the CC companies do.

My S-I-L received a CC solicitation. While in the hospital. In the cancer ward. (Along with a rather humerous bundle of other things, like shampoo)

SIL is fine now, but I'm still shocked at their predatory practices. They take death into account. Your responsibility is to the estate, not to them. Let them go pound sand.

[Campion]

Morality enters into the equation if it differs from what is legal. If your mom borrowed money (she did) and promised to pay it back (she did) and her estate has the money to pay it back (it does, once the house is sold) then you should pay them back. Period. A point of clarification: per the OP, the estate does not have enough cash to pay the estate's debts. There is $6K in cash, $5K in credit card debt, an unspecified amount in a mortgage, and an unspecified amount in equity in the house.

Option 1: pay the credit cards with the cash, lose the house. The equity in the house may or may not be lost (i.e., some amount may be eaten up in foreclosure or the sale price may be less than it should be), so the mortgage may or may not fully be paid. This is, of course, a bad option because it is the least efficient use of resources and results in the most lost to the most number of people.

Option 2: do as your lawyer suggested and use the cash to maintain the house until it can be sold for a maximizing amount. If the credit card companies do not act upon their rights within the statutory period, so be it.

The law exists for a reason. It permits you, very quickly, to wrap up an estate and to go on with your life. It permits money and property that otherwise could be tied up for years to be passed on to beneficiaries quickly and thereby be used. Bottom line, if your lawyer has accurately advised you about the state of the law, you should not be concerned. A company, like a credit card company, that does business in Maryland likely knows what the law says, or is able easily to ascertain it. Don't you think these arguments about morality already have been raised with the Legislature? In addition, what's the difference, really, between a statutory period that is six months and one that is twelve months? Is twelve months inherently fair? What about eleven months?

Edward, I commend you for even thinking about these things. If it truly bothers you that much, if the credit card companies do not get a claim in in time, you can "make a donation" to them from your proceeds from the estate (your share, not the share of other beneficiaries, because you can't take that from them without their permission/ without a legitimate claim on the estate).

The above is not legal advice, and I am not your lawyer. Nor are you my client. You have your own lawyer, with whom you should consult (as you have been.)

[Imasquare]

So, do I morally have to pay back the debt? Is it wrong to use the law to your advantage like this?Would you feel bad about it if you did this? The way you feel about it (assuming you aren't a sociopath*) is a good indication.

Also consider how you would feel if someone owed you money but avoided paying you by some similar trick...


* If you were a sociopath I doubt you would even be asking this question.

[MLS]

IANAL, etc., etc.

As others have said, you have no obligation to dip into your personal funds. The debt is owed by the estate. The estate is obligated to pay its debts. Obviously, laws differ from place to place, and my experience as a co-executor of my late father's estate may be of no validity in your location. However, what my sister and I did was to pay the credit card and other bills out of the amount left in Dad's bank account. If the bank account had run dry before all the bills were paid, my guess would be that the creditors still had a valid claim on the estate. My non-professional opinion would be that if they're sending a bill to the deceased, that's an indication that there is a debt. Can the executor really say, legally, that he/she didn't know the total due? I wouldn't think so, but then I'm not educated in estate law.

On our lawyer's suggestion, we did one of those public notices in small print in the newspaper that said any claims had to be made within 6 months, blah, blah, legalisms, blah, blah. My impression was that this was supposed to keep creditors and the like from coming out of the woodwork years later and claiming they were owed money, not that it applied to legitimate bills that we already knew about.

On another issue, regarding the ethics of credit card companies -- one of Dad's credit card companies tried to get us to pay for charges that appeared on his account at a time when he was hospitalized and in intensive care. There was no way he could have agreed to buy a "credit card protection service." NFW. But the company tried to say that he did. Sheesh! :rolleyes:

[Fear Itself]

So basically, if the credit cards don't say anything soon they don't get their money and I don't have to pay. This to me seems at least a bit wrong...Does it seem wrong that a credit card company can raise your rate to 29% if you are a day late? Of course not, it's in the fine print, all legal, you agreed to it. By the same token, the credit card companies agreed to do business under the laws of your state. It's in the fine print, all legal. Why is one moral and the other is not?

[Imasquare]

Does it seem wrong that a credit card company can raise your rate to 29% if you are a day late? Of course not, it's in the fine print, all legal, you agreed to it. By the same token, the credit card companies agreed to do business under the laws of your state. It's in the fine print, all legal. Why is one moral and the other is not?Just because something is legal does not necessarily mean that it is moral.

[Cheesesteak]

I'll say this, if our OP feels that CC companies are the spawn of the devil who steal from their customers at any opportunity, then I could stand behind him in his quest to hurt them as much as he can, legally. That is taking a moral position based on your own experience and knowledge. OTOH, if he decides to not pay this debt, just because the law allows it, that is not a moral position, it is opportunism.

The golden rule isn't "Do unto others as you think they would do unto you." it's "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." What the CC companies would do in this situation is not strictly relevant, we are talking about the OP's morals, not theirs.

[kanicbird]

If a corporation can be disolved and stiff people, I see no moral reason why a real human stiff can't either.

[Zebra]

I don't think it is moral for the CC companies to expect any payment after death. That is why it is called UNsecured debt. The house is different because the house is the security.


If you feel you must, then pay them back after you sell the house. You are just lucky that you live in MD and the state has at least one law between you and the credit card company.

[Fear Itself]

Just because something is legal does not necessarily mean that it is moral.So is it immoral to charge 29% interest? Morally, am I required to submit to an immoral practice, just because I legally agreed to it?

[Manda JO]

So is it immoral to charge 29% interest? Morally, am I required to submit to an immoral practice, just because I legally agreed to it?

And the company legally agreed that if you die and they don't notice for six months, they won't make a claim against your estate. Now, they may have been compelled to make that agreement based on state law, but they could have decided not to do business in Maryland.

[Fear Itself]

And the company legally agreed that if you die and they don't notice for six months, they won't make a claim against your estate. Now, they may have been compelled to make that agreement based on state law, but they could have decided not to do business in Maryland.Exactly.

[Dangerosa]

And if it were worthwhile, they'd be pulling death certificates (which are a matter of public record) and checking them against their client list and filing claims against the estate. Apparently, this technique doesn't have ROI, so they don't do it.

Although one correction, the money isn't yours. It is the estates until the estate is settled. Debts get paid before heirs. However, I don't see you under any obligation to let the credit card company know.

[Girl From Mars]

I have to say I am surprised at the view of morality expressed here. Given the original theme of the OP, I would have thought the question that would have determined whether you morally should have to pay back the debt would be - did she accrue the debt? To whom it is owed, what the legal ruling on it being owed back etc I don't think has a bearing on whether you should pay it back. It was genuinely accrued, and should be paid back.

[Cheesesteak]

I'm with you GFM, it's disappointing to find so many people saying that it is moral to default on a known debt, as long as it's legal to do so.

There is no honor in paying back your debts when legally compelled to. What you do when the law doesn't force your hand defines whether or not you're a moral being.

[Caffeine.addict]

I'm actually kind of surprised by this. Does your attorney specialize in this sort of thing? Wouldn't the credit card company become kind of suspicious when they see the checks have Estate of ______________ written on them?

[Ignatz]

And if it were worthwhile, they'd be pulling death certificates (which are a matter of public record) and checking them against their client list and filing claims against the estate. Apparently, this technique doesn't have ROI, so they don't do it.

Although one correction, the money isn't yours. It is the estates until the estate is settled. Debts get paid before heirs. However, I don't see you under any obligation to let the credit card company know.


I don't know what "ROI" means, but I used to live next door to a lady that worked for a bank (NCNB-now BOA) and (one of) her job(s) was to check the obituaries in the local paper to see if any of their customers had died. Don't assume that the bank will not find out one way or another before you act.

[Campion]

I'm with you GFM, it's disappointing to find so many people saying that it is moral to default on a known debt, as long as it's legal to do so.

There is no honor in paying back your debts when legally compelled to. What you do when the law doesn't force your hand defines whether or not you're a moral being.One point of clarification; the debt is the decedent's, not Edward's. He owes nothing to the companies at issue. I suspect that most people would agree that debts are personal responsibilities, and that strangers to the debt bear no responsibility for repaying said debts.

Having said that, I have not seen anyone in this thread advocating "default[ing] on a known debt." Rather, the general thrust of the comments has been that if the companies holding the debt put a valid claim in to the estate, as permitted by law, they ought to be paid. If they do not do so (for whatever reason), Edward is under no obligation to pay that debt. Indeed, should he decide to do so, perhaps because he sides with you and believes he has a moral obligation to pay the debts of another, he emphatically could not do so with estate funds. He has a legal and ethical responsibility to the estate and to the other beneficiaries. If he were to spend estate funds to pay off company that had made no valid claim on the debt, he would be exceeding his authority as executor. Therefore, should he decide to pay the debt, he must do so out of his own pocket.

The OP is rather factually specific. And under the facts given, I don't see a moral obligation to pay a debt to the detriment of the estate and the beneficiaries if the creditor fails to make a claim for that debt. Indeed, the moral position is to pay only those debts as to which valid claims are made. To do otherwise is to cheat other creditors.

[Girl From Mars]

Not advocating Edward should repay the debt with his own money. The money he would be repaying the debt back with is from the estate.

And people have been advocating avoidance of the debt - when suggesting to keep quiet about the debt and waiting to see if the CC company notices:
I would say that it is the credit card company's responsibility to figure out whether their clients are dead.
Note that if there were any monies the CC company were legally but not morally entitled to (make up your own hypothetical scenario), they'd absolutely 100% guaranteed come after you for it. I see no reason to go beyond your legal obligations to them.
If a corporation can be disolved and stiff people, I see no moral reason why a real human stiff can't either.
That's not being honest about the situation.

No, in my view the debt is known, it was acrrued by his mother, and as a debt to the estate it should be paid back by the estate. The legal loopholes are irrelevant when considering whether morally this debt should be repaid.

[Cheesesteak]

He has a legal and ethical responsibility to the estate and to the other beneficiaries. If he were to spend estate funds to pay off company that had made no valid claim on the debt, he would be exceeding his authority as executor.

And under the facts given, I don't see a moral obligation to pay a debt to the detriment of the estate and the beneficiaries if the creditor fails to make a claim for that debt. Indeed, the moral position is to pay only those debts as to which valid claims are made.This is exactly the same reasoning used by people at the credit card company when they charge usurous rates to customers who pay a day late. "Our responsibility is to the shareholders, not you." I guess that makes them moral beings too, as long as they try and squeeze as much dough out of you as they legally can. Those telemarketers that convince sad old people to spend money on crap they don't need? Moral, since they were hired to sell stuff, not to make sure old folks have enough money for food. That used car salesman who sold a Doper a car that he knew would break down after a few miles? Moral, his job is to sell cars, not to make sure everybody has quality transportation.

Does the word Moral even have meaning under this reasoning? Is there right and wrong, or is my lawyer now my conscience?

[BobLibDem]

The actions of others do not justify immoral behavior on your own part. The estate owes money to legitimate creditors. The estate ought to pay them back. The honest policy is to write to the creditors, inform of the situation, and tell them they'll be paid with the proceeds of the sale of the house.

[zoltar7]

Not advocating Edward should repay the debt with his own money. The money he would be repaying the debt back with is from the estate.That's the point: it's the estate's money, not the OP's, and it would be wrong for him to decide on his own to use the estate's money to pay these creditors in the absence of a valid claim as outlined by law.

If the creditors file a claim, absolutely he should pay them. If they don't, the estate does not legitimately owe them the money, and paying these bills would effectively be stealing from the heirs.

The moral thing for the OP to do is to diligently carry out his duties as executor.

[Cheesesteak]

If the creditors file a claim, absolutely he should pay them. If they don't, the estate does not legitimately owe them the money,Nonsense. The estate legitimately owes them money if his mother borrowed money from them before dying. The estate may not be legally required to pay it back, but that debt is as legit as any other debt in existance.

If I borrow $20 bucks from you because I'm short, is that not a legitimate debt? You'll never get legal enforcement of the debt, but that doesn't mean I didn't borrow, and it doesn't mean I don't owe you.

[Campion]

The estate legitimately owes them money if his mother borrowed money from them before dying. The estate may not be legally required to pay it back, but that debt is as legit as any other debt in existance.
Agreed. And to the extent that my prior post was inconsistent with the following, I hereby retract the prior post.

As the executor, Edward's primary duty is to the estate. If he is aware of a creditor, he ought to see that the creditor is repaid. Moreover, if the creditor makes a claim against the estate, generally the creditor has no right to immediate payment, but instead must wait for the estate to be paid out. Therefore, my earlier concern -- that paying the credit card companies would mean that the other creditors would not get paid -- is moot. If there is no legal bar to notifying the credit card companies of the death, and the companies have no ability to force an early payout that would waste the estate (or they are amenable to a negotiated settlement), then I agree that the executor ought to pay them.

In hindsight, I was wrong to say that an executor has a duty to the beneficiaries. I believe the executor's duty is to the estate. So notifying the credit card companies of the death and arranging for their payment when the estate closes works for me.

Cheesesteak and Girl From Mars raised some interesting points. I don't agree with all of them, but I could live with the above scenario.

[Sunspace]

Wait, wait, wait. I thought credit-card debt was cancelled on the cardholder's death. Am I wrong?

[boofuu]

The actions of others do not justify immoral behavior on your own part. The estate owes money to legitimate creditors. The estate ought to pay them back. The honest policy is to write to the creditors, inform of the situation, and tell them they'll be paid with the proceeds of the sale of the house.

I think this is the best idea. The house payments still have to made. It makes no sense to default on the mortgage loan when the house is worth more than the credit card debt. I will have to say if you have to ask the question, you know you "morally" should pay the debt. Omission of facts is still a lie, so saying that the companies should be responsible to find out about the death is ingenuous at best.

But to be perfectly honest I think this is a 100% a business matter and not a moral one. In a society that exempt charitable donations it is hard to justify paying off a debt that you can legally get out of. It is probably best to call the companies directly and work out a deal, maybe pay a small amount on each until the matter of the estate is finished.

While the usurous nature of credit companies should not necessarily determine what you feel is right, I think it is noteworthy to realize that they do not give a rat's ass about your circumstances. I say "morally" you should stiff them since they tend to prey on the people that they know cannot make payments (i.e. college students) and then jack up the interest one day after a payment is not paid. Twenty-nine percent interest? Come on. I am seriously morally opposed to credit card companies' practice and refuse to apply for any.

[Edward The Head]

So I have some more answers to my questions. I must find the companies, in my case the credit card companies, and mail them a copy of the death notice in the paper. After that it is up to them to go to the court and file the proper papers. The best reason I can come up with is to keep someone from finding out my mother died, then years later try coming after me.

So what my lawyer told me to do is not what I should be doing. One would think that a lawyer in his field should know what to do, but then again maybe his normal clients don't die with much debt. I will have to inform him of this.

However, this still leaves the question if they do not respond in time does the estate still have to pay? If so, is there ever a cut off? What happens if in ten years someone tries to come after me? Twenty?

[dlack]

So I have some more answers to my questions. I must find the companies, in my case the credit card companies, and mail them a copy of the death notice in the paper. After that it is up to them to go to the court and file the proper papers. The best reason I can come up with is to keep someone from finding out my mother died, then years later try coming after me.

So what my lawyer told me to do is not what I should be doing. One would think that a lawyer in his field should know what to do, but then again maybe his normal clients don't die with much debt. I will have to inform him of this.

However, this still leaves the question if they do not respond in time does the estate still have to pay? If so, is there ever a cut off? What happens if in ten years someone tries to come after me? Twenty?

Are you asking about the morality or legality of your situation? Everyone here has been posting about morality.

If you have legal questions you need to speak to your lawyer again.

[foolsguinea]

If you can't pay for both the house & the credit card debt, pay for the house. Secured debt must take priority. Unsecured debt can, if the estate is completely out of funds, be disregarded. Legally, morally, practically.

That said, go with the path that loses the estate the least money. Don't just assume the CC company won't find out what's going on. I think losing equity in the house might be worse than giant credit card fees, but it might not. Run the numbers, & see which is worse to not pay.

But I'd err on the side of hanging on to the equity.

[Edward The Head]

If you can't pay for both the house & the credit card debt, pay for the house. Secured debt must take priority. Unsecured debt can, if the estate is completely out of funds, be disregarded. Legally, morally, practically.


Actually I wasn't asking what I should do, I do know to pay the house now and let the credit wait until the rest is settled. That's what supposed to happen as is.

My question is, I find the creditors, send them the paperwork the law says I need to. They in turn either submit the correct paperwork on time, or they do not submit. I'm not even sure if the estate would be allowed to pay back someone who did not respond properly. I think I've been using the word "I" the same as estate in this case, because to me they are the same. I personally will not, and have not been paying any of the bills. The estate, on the other hand has been paying for the house.

So it stands, does the estate pay up 5 years from now? 10 years? 20 years? The law clearly says that if someone does not come forward within six months they are SOL.

Here's another example: My mother just bought a lawn mower, it was on one of those twelve month defered payment plans. The estate knows about it so I have to send them the notice. However, what would happen if the estate didn't know about it, then when the year was up they sent a bill. Should something like that be paid? There is no way that the estate can know about something like that if they do not bill every month.

Again I have been using the word I for estate, I'm not personally paying for anything the estate is. Nor will any credit be paid until the estate is sold, I don't have to and there is no reason to.

Are you asking about the morality or legality of your situation? Everyone here has been posting about morality.

If you have legal questions you need to speak to your lawyer again.
No I know the legal questions, I was asking if the estate knew about debt, but they did not put in the proper paperwork in time does the estate still owe them.

[Cheesesteak]

I think these new rules change the situation a bit. Rather than hiding out and hoping they don't notice her passing on, you are informing them of the situation, giving them full and open communication about it, and allowing them time to file (as is standard for your state) That is more than enough effort on your part.

While I'm all for paying back debts, I don't think the debtor needs to hunt the creditor down and shove money at them. There's a difference between being open and having the creditor just be lazy and being secretive about the situation.

[Quartz]

A small point I haven't seen addressed: that credit card debt is still accruing interest, isn't it? I would have thought it better to speak to the mortgage company and agree a payment holiday prior to sale and to pay off as much of the credit card debt as possible. Just suppose that EtH gets a letter after 179 days, when the estate owes an extra $1K? Or simply ask them to freeze the debt until the house is sold.

Is the house really going to take 6 months to sell?