Whether she makes an effort to pay is completely up to her. She needs to do what is right for her, and i don’t know anything about her situation. However, i suspect that if she did some soul-searching, she would come to the conclusion that at least part of her husband’s CC debt was of direct benefit to her, and therefore she would sleep better if she tried to pay it off.
I’m more irritated at all the posters who think that it’s somehow OK to renege on debt that was incurred when married. If I get divorced, my wife can potentially receive a percentage of my future earnings. I don’t see why people don’t think that the converse is reasonable - that she should be responsible for a portion of my current debt.
And if you got divorced she would not in any way be obligated (morally, or otherwise) to pay for debt which she did not incur. Why should it be different if he died?
You seem to be deliberately ignoring your own cite. I’ll quote it again and bold the relevant clause of the sentence:
In the original thread, it was made clear that the widow was NOT a co-signer of the card in question. The credit card’s company dunning of her and attempt to get her to include non-estate funds as part of the estate is vile fraud.
See the bolding - that’s the key point here. They’re not both co-signors, therefore they’re not jointly responsible. Even if she had a card as an additional card-holder, she is not responsible.
Besides, your cite has nothing to do with morality/ethics, its back to legality, which earlier you were avoiding.
But that’s the LEGAL issue. You already told us to drop the legal issue and to focus on the MORAL issue. Community property states have fuck-all to do with morality/ethics.
When the CC company issued the card, they checked the credit of the holder, and made a decision to do business with that person. Also in that decision was the fact that the card holder would pay considerably more interest than he would had it been a secured (collateral) loan. The CC company traded away the security interest for a higher rate of interest in return. Do you think it’s fair to allow them to collect unsecured interest rates and thereafter repossess the property when a holder dies as they would for a secured loan?
Wow - are people really angry that beowulff holds that view? Not just that they disagree, but they are really angry about it?
I’m no legal expert, but if my wife bought a bunch of stuff on credit and then up and died, I’d feel a moral obligation to pay her debt back if I could. Am I a troll?
The laws are guided by morality, and in this case, its not a legal issue that she owes the company!
My problem with your position is that you have a contract between two entities. You are holding one of them to a higher standard than the other. Screw that. The CC’s are big boys and girls and they can protect themselves. They would not hesitate to destroy her credit if they could get away with it (which fucks her as far as insurance and jobs, because both of those groups do credit checks).
You keep ignoring the fact that credit companies already factor in the cost of situations like the OP into their rates. Why should they have it both ways? Why should they be able to lend out money, charge for risk and then not assume risk?
FYI, I’ve gotten three calls this month from Bank of America about my BIL’s debts. Anyone who lends him money is a sheer moron. I am not obligated to help them not be idiots.
I’m not ignoring this.
I just think it’s irrelevant.
What you are saying is that it’s perfectly moral to throw a brick through someone’s window because they have insurance.
What I am saying is: If everyone made their best effort to pay off their debts (and I am including debt incurred as a family unit), then the world would be a much better, less expensive place.