Death and Credit Card Debt

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@beowulff

@Contrapuntal

Now you’ve changed it again. First you said the wife was responsible, which began this back and forth, now you say the estate is. It’s getting hard to take you seriously when you wriggle about like that.

His wife is a beneficiary of his estate. As such, his estate should be required to discharge its debts before she gets any benefits.

Regardless, she is still morally obligated to cover a percentage of the debts that her husband incurred when they were married, since any income he made would have been considered partially hers.

It’s truly astounding how many people think that dodging debt this way is OK. If the husband borrowed money from a relative, would the wife try to welsh on that debt too?

I thought it best to respond to this post in the Blandness Pit.

[friedo]

@beowulff

@Contrapuntal

Now you’ve changed it again. First you said the wife was responsible, which began this back and forth, now you say the estate is. It’s getting hard to take you seriously when you wriggle about like that.

His wife is a beneficiary of his estate. As such, his estate should be required to discharge its debts before she gets any benefits.

Stop. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Nobody disputes that the estate is responsible for the debt. The insurance payment is not part of the estate. For any entity with a claim against an estate to attempt to convince someone that they are required to use non-estate assets to settle the debt is borderline fraud.

[beowulff]

@friedo

@beowulff

His wife is a beneficiary of his estate. As such, his estate should be required to discharge its debts before she gets any benefits.

Stop. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Nobody disputes that the estate is responsible for the debt. The insurance payment is not part of the estate. For any entity with a claim against an estate to attempt to convince someone that they are required to use non-estate assets to settle the debt is borderline fraud.

I never once said that the CC company was legally entitled to do what they are doing.

I said the wife was MORALLY obligated. You might want to check out the Pit thread.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@beowulff

It’s truly astounding how many people think that dodging debt this way is OK.

What, by dying?
Looks to me like you’re describing a fun and easy way to fuck over one’s relatives if one is contemplating suicide: take out multiple credit cards, get maximum cash advances on all of them, hold a money bonfire, kill self, leave economic chaos in your wake.

[Dante]

@beowulff

That’s fine.
From a legal standpoint, the CC company may not be able to pursue collection of the debt, however from a moral standpoint, I think the wife should make an effort to cover it.

From a moral standpoint, I think the CC company should make an effort to cover it.

[beowulff]

@Dante

@beowulff

That’s fine.
From a legal standpoint, the CC company may not be able to pursue collection of the debt, however from a moral standpoint, I think the wife should make an effort to cover it.

From a moral standpoint, I think the CC company should make an effort to cover it.

Why?

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@friedo

@beowulff

His wife is a beneficiary of his estate. As such, his estate should be required to discharge its debts before she gets any benefits.

Stop. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Nobody disputes that the estate is responsible for the debt. The insurance payment is not part of the estate. For any entity with a claim against an estate to attempt to convince someone that they are **required **to use non-estate assets to settle the debt is **borderline **fraud.

The bolded words are in conflict, I think. If the non-estate funds are not required to be used for such a purpose, the action is clearly fraud, on account of being a lie.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Dante

@beowulff

That’s fine.
From a legal standpoint, the CC company may not be able to pursue collection of the debt, however from a moral standpoint, I think the wife should make an effort to cover it.

From a moral standpoint, I think the CC company should make an effort to cover it.

From a business standpoint, the CC company should just move this to their “bad debts” column and fill out Form 1120X to claim the tax deduction.

[Dante]

@beowulff

@Dante

From a moral standpoint, I think the CC company should make an effort to cover it.

Why?

Okay, so we agree that she does not legally owe the CC company any money? Good.

So morally, I’m going to go with, let’s see … She’s a widow with a young child. How can you take food from their table? WON’T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHITLINS!

[muldoonthief]

@beowulff

@friedo

Stop. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Nobody disputes that the estate is responsible for the debt. The insurance payment is not part of the estate. For any entity with a claim against an estate to attempt to convince someone that they are required to use non-estate assets to settle the debt is borderline fraud.

I never once said that the CC company was legally entitled to do what they are doing.

I said the wife was MORALLY obligated. You might want to check out the Pit thread.

But why? It’s not like the CC company was somehow hoodwinked by the customer. They know the law very well, knew that if they extended credit to this person and he died, they’d only legal be able to collect a debt from the estate, and they freely and willingly chose to take on that risk. Why should the widow have a moral obligation to mitigate the risk they were willing to take?

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@beowulff

@Dante

From a moral standpoint, I think the CC company should make an effort to cover it.

Why?

Becuase it is immoral to collect a debt from an impoverished person when the impoverished person did not agree to the terms of the debt, when forgiving/writing off the debt will be trivial for the creditor, and paying the debt will be a major hardship to the impoverished person.

In other news I have spoken to the Great Oz and he has agreed to provide you with the items you need, not least of which is a heart.

[beowulff]

@muldoonthief

@beowulff

I never once said that the CC company was legally entitled to do what they are doing.

I said the wife was MORALLY obligated. You might want to check out the Pit thread.

But why? It’s not like the CC company was somehow hoodwinked by the customer. They know the law very well, knew that if they extended credit to this person and he died, they’d only legal be able to collect a debt from the estate, and they freely and willingly chose to take on that risk. Why should the widow have a moral obligation to mitigate the risk they were willing to take?

Because the husband made a commitment, and some of the benefit of that commitment went to the wife.

If I shoplift groceries and my wife and I eat them, are you saying that my wife got no benefit from my theft because the store figures in the cost of shoplifting when they price their food?

[Contrapuntal]

@beowulff

@muldoonthief

But why? It’s not like the CC company was somehow hoodwinked by the customer. They know the law very well, knew that if they extended credit to this person and he died, they’d only legal be able to collect a debt from the estate, and they freely and willingly chose to take on that risk. Why should the widow have a moral obligation to mitigate the risk they were willing to take?

Because the husband made a commitment, and some of the benefit of that commitment went to the wife.

If I shoplift groceries and my wife and I eat them, are you saying that my wife got no benefit from my theft because the store figures in the cost of shoplifting when they price their food?

Are you saying that in the history of the world, a wife has been prosecuted because her husband shoplifted?

[beowulff]

@Contrapuntal

@beowulff

Because the husband made a commitment, and some of the benefit of that commitment went to the wife.

If I shoplift groceries and my wife and I eat them, are you saying that my wife got no benefit from my theft because the store figures in the cost of shoplifting when they price their food?

Are you saying that in the history of the world, a wife has been prosecuted because her husband shoplifted?

No, I’m trying to explain (in small words) why the wife is morally obligated to cover a portion of her husband’s debts, regardless of whether she is legally obligated to.

[Hakuna_Matata]

@beowulff

Because the husband made a commitment, and some of the benefit of that commitment went to the wife.
?

So if the husband played the horses and lost big time to the local bookie and now that bookie is coming to the widow to collect–you are okay with that? I bet she got some benefit of that as well right?

But we don’t expect the widow to bear the price of her husband personal debts, whether they are credit card debts, or gambling debts do we? She didn’t place a bet, nor did she use the credit cards.

The credit card company has a legal avenue to collect monies owed, IF they choose to explore that avenue. Leaning on the widow, whether by the bookie or the credit card company is the morally wrong issue in this scenario in my opinion.

I have two credit cards, one joint and one personal. My wife gets ZERO benefit from things on my personal card and thus she should have no moral or legal obligation for my debts. Why should she? My joint card I would agree she has an obligation to pay.

[Contrapuntal]

@beowulff

@Contrapuntal

Are you saying that in the history of the world, a wife has been prosecuted because her husband shoplifted?

No, I’m trying to explain (in small words) why the wife is morally obligated to cover a portion of her husband’s debts, regardless of whether she is legally obligated to.

So is my neighbor morally responsible for my car loan if I gave her a ride to school every day? My sister? My girlfriend?

[Morgenstern]

That’s an assumption isn’t it (that the wife got a benefit)? What benefit did the wife get by the husband going into debt?

[muldoonthief]

…

[Surly_Chick]

Wow. Just wow.

Anyway, as I said, they were not well off. The life insurance policy was small with just little left over after covering the funeral. She, not the estate, was the beneficiary. They had little to no savings as her husband had been laid off 4 months ago and they were living on her salary alone. Luckily, he was covered under her insurance or his illness would have bankrupted them. As is, she’s going to move into the other side of her grandmother’s duplex and try to sell the house as they are upside down on the mortgage and she can no longer afford the monthly payment on her own. The did have joint credit cards which she *is *paying. I didn’t pry and ask how much was on his credit cards or what he used them for so I can’t make a call as to whether she’s morally obligated to pay them off. I do know that she asked for donations for her son’s education in lieu of flowers so she’s clearly worried about the future.

[Colibri]

@beowulff

I said the wife was MORALLY obligated. You might want to check out the Pit thread.

[Moderator Note]

This is GQ. Your personal opinions about what is morally obligated have no relevance while it is in this forum.

However, since this is about a specific legal situation, it is more appropriate for IMHO than GQ anyway.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator