I’m putting this in IMHO because I think there may not be a specific answer.
Let’s assume this happens in a married situation. One spouse is the breadwinner and the other is unemployed. At one time the unemployed spouse could not get a credit card in their own name, but times have changed, mainly because of the women’s lib. movement. So the unemployed person gets a CC in their own name, but what do they base this on? The family income? If there is a divorce is the employed spouse liable for the debt? (assuming they were not party to the original CC agreement)
While I’m at it, what about getting another person a card on your account, does that make them liable for the debt, or is the original applicant on the hook for all of it. For example, you give your GF a card, in her name, on your existing account, then you break up after she has run up a big bill, can the CC company hold her liable, or is it your problem to sue her for the money?
There is a difference between a authorized used, which has no liability (except for outright fraud), and, well I forget the term, but the cardholder, who is fully responsible.
From my understanding, in your example the unemployed spouse who got the card in their name only is responsible for the debt BUT since they are married they are both by default responsible. Most CC applications ask for ‘household income’.
So you’re saying that, even though both spouse weren’t party to the CC contract, that state financial responsibility laws might make it a moot point?
If that’s the case, then women haven’t gained much, if anything. They’re still dependant on their husbands to obtain credit and the husband is still, ultimately, responsible for the debt.
Joint account holder.
IANAL, but I don’t see how you could be a “joint account holder” unless you agreed to the original CC contract. If someone authorizes you to have a card, in your name, on their CC account, does that make you financially responsible for the account? Doesn’t sound right to me. Say someone, not related, authorizes you a card on their account, then they run up a big balance and go bankrupt. The CC company can come after you, just because you’re an authorized cardholder?
We’re obviously dealing w/ more than one question here.
Well the OP asks about folks who are married. “Joint and severable” (I think) basically means either spouse is on the hook for for debts incurred by the other.
Slightly hijacking here, but has anyone actually been able to get a joint credit card lately?
My wife and I thought we had one, but when I went to make a change to something when she was unavailable, I was told that I was just an “authorized user” on the account, and couldn’t actually affect the account settings (username and password for online access, in this case) because I wasn’t a “real” cardholder.
Well, that could cause us all sorts of problems, so we’ve been looking around for someplace to get a real “joint” credit card like they used to offer. Other than these 23-percent interest “anybody qualifies” monstrosities, we’ve had no luck. None of the cards that have what we want (usually “miles” or a specific retailer’s points) and reasonable interest rates are willing to give us a joint account: “We don’t do those any more, one of you will have to be an ‘authorized user.’” It’s not a credit issue, they’d issue the card to either of us on our own credit; they just won’t set up a joint account. I’m in Oregon, if it matters, but they usually don’t ask that before they refuse to do it.
I didn’t say that you could. kanicbird said “There is a difference between a authorized used, which has no liability (except for outright fraud), and, well I forget the term, but the cardholder, who is fully responsible.” The correct term is “joint account holder.” A JAH is legally responsible for the account and can access all information and perform maintenance (address change, request limit increase, close the line of credit, etc.). An authorized user has access to the line of credit and account information but may not perform maintenance.
When one tosses legal marriage into the mix it gets murkier, especially if one lives in a community property or marital property state. Look at a credit card application and you’ll see that it has special provisions for certain states, one of which is my state of Wisconsin. In general terms, in Wisconsin pretty much all property* owned by a married person is marital property, owned jointly with the spouse. All assets are owned by both parties and all liabilities are owned by both parties and are assumed to be liabilities “in furtherance of the marriage.”
*Some property, for instance property owned before the marriage and inheritances during the marriage, are individual property but can very easily convert to marital property, but that is beyond the scope of this thread.
I work part time. My husband makes 5 times what I earn in an average year. I’ve applied for credit using my name, ssn, and listing the “household” income. I currently hold cards that have a credit limit that exceeds what I make in a year.
If we were to separate, if I had a balance on the card we’d be jointly responsible for the debt by virtue of being married.
I’m not sure that’s correct. What’s your source on that?
I guess it depends on how you look at it. I see it as a big gain for women (In general women, but it could also go to men, but for this I’ll stick to the standard stereotype) and a big gain for marriage. Women once could not apply for a credit card if they didn’t meet the income requirements, now they can by the CC companies recognizing that income is household income, and we have 2 people working together as a unit, and either member of that unit has access to the income. That the income is derived not by 2 independent people but the synergistic effect of 2 people working together, even if this included one person working full time while the other cooks and cleans, the one who cooks and cleans is contributing to the environment that allows the first person to bring in income.
Now if you are talking about a single woman who is unemployed, why should a CC company take such a risk, even if she is living with a guy long term (almost marriage), if the couple can’t commit why should the CC company?
The word I was looking for was primary card holder
That’s one of the points I’m trying to get at.
Say the woman gets a card, in her name, during the marriage. They divorce and she can’t pay the balance. Can the CC company go after the ex husband. To make it more to the point, say that there was a zero balance at the time of the divorce, but she runs up a big debt after. At the time of the divorce the husband figures there’s no problem, since the card is in her name, but is that true?
I only know anything specific about Wisconsin law, which has a unique marital property statute, and IANAL etc.
Credit card applications include specific language relating to Wisconsin marital property law and marital property agreements. Quoting from the online Elan credit card app, since it’s the first one that came up on a search:
Note especially that last sentence. All debts incurred during a marriage are assumed by law to be a debt in the interest of the marriage. So if a spouse goes into debt buying gifts for his or her non-marital paramour, the other spouse is on the hook for those debts. So yes, a creditor can go after the assets of either spouse to satisfy the debt. In the course of a divorce, a judge may determine that one spouse or the other is responsible for a particular debt and will probably reduce that spouse’s share of the marital assets accordingly. Once the divorce is final and the two spouses are independent individuals, each of them will be responsible for his or her own debts incurred.
Actually, to clarify further, the creditor can go after the marital assets of the other spouse. I don’t think the creditor can go after the separate individual property, but it’s been a number of years since I studied this.