beowulff,
The level of denseness you are displayingin this thread – and in particular posts 33, 35, & 38–is simply unbelievable. I no longer believe you are simply being disingenuous for the sake of argument. You are trolling in an attempt to annoy other persons and amuse yourself. Please stop, or, alternatively, bite me.
Regards,
Captain Silly
Well, I’m certainly not going to lend you any money, Skald.
Maybe I think the way I do because I live in a community property state:
Why do you think the way you do?
ETA: Cool! My first Pitting!
Because community property is a minority view only used in a handful of states…think it’s around 10 or so.
And “Gay Mariage” is in even fewer - this makes it “wrong"?
Want me to curse some more?
Well … some. I thought about going all Anglo-Saxon-monosyllable on you but it seemed unRhymerish. Anyway, I can threaten you with bees if you want.
Yeah, Oak, why do you hate gay people?
And gay married people who don’t share their debts?
Creep.
Quoting **beowulff **from the linked thread:
The CC company deserves only what the wife legally and contractually owes. The CC company will certainly make no effort to do what is “morally right” for the widow and she’d be a fool to extend such consideration unilaterally.
You seem … confused … as to how this “argument” thing works.
So after emphatically stating in the other thread that it is not a legal issue, now you say it is? Do you have the slightest idea what the fuck you are talking about?
beowulff -
Your quote says it all… “unless there is specific evidence that would point to a contrary conclusion for a particular debt…”
The evidence, as suggested by the original OP, and speculated by the thread participants was that the husband had his own credit account, and his wife was not a signatory. She could not use the account. She was not named on the account. She did not sign the legal documentation agreeing to pay for the credit extended. I’d submit that would be some pretty specific evidence pointing to a contrary conclusion that this was not a joint obligation.
You argued in the original thread that she had a “moral” if not legal obligation to pay. Because your state is a community property state, do you use that guidance as a way of forming your moralistic beliefs about debt dispersal in this type of instance?
Clearly, it’s handled differently in each state.
I have no idea what state the OP is posting from. If it’s not a legal matter in that state, so be it. However, it’s (IMHO) a moral obligation in every state.
Would you have an issue with the the CC company attempting to repossess items purchased on credit?
Actually, no.
I’m just SO sick of the fucking “lottery mentality” of this country. I hate that some any people try to get rich by gaming the system. It’s what got us into the huge financial hole we’re in now. People (and that includes couples if they are married) should make an all-out effort to pay their damn bills, and not over-extend themselves. I hate how so many people think that it’s OK to walk away from obligations, leaving the rest of us to pay for their largess.
Also, I think that it’s complete bullshit to claim that it was the Husband’s debt alone - most households act as a single monetary unit. Even if they were responsible for separate bills, the household as a whole benefited from their separate payments.
You keep saying that, but you don’t say why, nor do you respond to the many counter examples offered you. This isn’t Texas Hold’em. There is no advantage gained by pretending to have a weak hand. Show us what you have.
*Caveat *: I am no legal scholar, but it seems to me that if the contract specifies that the debt is unsecured, then possessions cannot be used as security. I could be wrong.
I suspect that CC companies don’t want to be in the business of warehousing and selling used furniture and such. To your knowledge, has a CC company ever done anything like that?
But the CC company is very aware of the law, and freely offered him credit knowing that if he died they’d have limited recourse. They were willing to take that risk, and no doubt structured the CC terms around that risk. They could have said “We see you have a spouse - we’ll only extend you credit if she comes on as a cosigner, so that we can collect the debt from her if you die.” But they chose not to. Why then, should the spouse be morally obligated to pay them back when they were willing to take that risk?
Damn dead deadbeats. We should kill them all.
That’s not what I asked.
I’m asking about the concept of repossessing - do you agree that they are within their rights?
Well, they never possessed it in the first place, so I really don’t see how they could repossess it. But the only rights they have are the ones spelled out in the contract, and if it says the debt is unsecured it is unsecured. They have no right to the property.
Once again, that’s not what I asked.
Do YOU think that the CC company should be able to sell items purchased on credit in order to cover bad debt?
Yeah, it always amazes me the way that some people have no problem with companies acting as rational, self-interested economic entities, but won’t extend the same consideration to individuals.
Much the same set of attitudes is common regarding home buyers who choose to default on an underwater mortgage and hand the keys over to the bank. When companies make rational business decisions like this, they’re just doing their duty, but when people do it, they are apparently being morally irresponsible.