That is what I am discussing. What are you discussing?
We are discussing whether a wife as a moral obligation to pay for debt incurred by her husband. I don’t really care what the CC companies obligation is - it’s not germane to this discussion.
Now, I’ve already presented that in some states (e.g. - mine), she may be LEGALLY responsible for this debt. I believe that in all states she is morally responsible.
I’m sure there are endless scenarios that one can spin that make my position seem absurd, but in real life, if the husband has been using his personal card in support of the family, then I think the wife is on the hook for at least some of the debt.
OK, so let’s modify it. What if, instead of that clause, the contract said that the credit card company will comply with all applicable state and federal laws and one of the applicable state laws said that dying means all debts are void.
What then?
Well, I’d probably be OK with that, although it would still irk me to see people take advantage of the system to avoid paying their obligations (as an example - both husband and wife have personal cards, they use all their available credit for living expenses and then conveniently die).
Remember, my position on this has little to do with contract law, which varies from state to state. I’m viewing this from a “big picture” perspective - if more people would live up to their obligations, than the world would be a better place. And, to that end, even if the contract explicitly forgave the debt, I think it might still be a reasonable idea to pay it off. Call it “doing the right thing."
That is not the discussion the OP framed. You are the one who hijacked the thread by intoducing the morality red herring. It is disingenuous of you to go after the morality of borrowers , then let lenders off the morality hook.
I’m well aware that I’m responding to my “hijack” of this thread, but since that’s what the bulk of the thread has been about, I didn’t think it necessary to spell it out.
And, I don’t see anything disingenuous about commenting on the morality of borrowers without exploring the morality of lenders - those are two separate subjects. Believe me, I have no love for the credit card companies, but that doesn’t mean that I should let borrowers get away with murder.
We could certainly have a lively thread debating the dynamics of borrowers and lenders, but in this thread, it’s all been a pile-on about my comment that borrowers (or their families) should pay their debts. Since I’m the one being piled-on, I should at least be able to constrain the discussion to one topic.
That’s um, exactly what is happening here.
The credit card company made an unsecured loan. They knew very well that the card holder may die with outstanding debt.
They could have required an annual fee to insure against that possibility (and may have for all we know)
They could have required a cosigner
They could have denied the line of credit altogether
They could have required to be named the beneficiary of life insurance
They didn’t. They analyzed the risk and accepted it, now they must bear it.
Tell your friend not to send them a fucking nickel, goddamn vulturemotherfuckers.
Tell that to the judge next time you’re in court. I’m sure he’ll accept it. :rolleyes:
Ah, so we are now on a sliding scale of moral responsibility. And who shall be the arbiter of this sliding scale? The Mighty beowulff?
So, have at it. When you are the one lending the money, you set the terms. But get this, in the case of credit cards, you are not the one setting the terms, the credit card companies are. They are big boys and can take care of themselves.
And as for the idea that ‘you’ are paying for the debts of the deadbeats? Bullshit, the credit card companies never once made you pay for it. They may account for it in their pricing, but you don’t have to pay it.
Can’t imagine why. I heard when he dies, he wants all the dragon’s treasure buried with him instead of using it to pay off his Visa bill.
It’s not a problem. Since he lives in a community property state, I’m sure some chump will get stuck with the bill.
If the creditor dies owing the credit card company money, and at death the creditor has no money (and hence no estate) then the risk of loss is the credit card company’s. Perhaps the credit card company should’ve taken some of the money from the 28% interest rate they charge and purchased a life insurance policy on the creditor’s life, in order to cover its own risk of loss.
“Conveniently die”? Convenient for whom? This ranks up there with one of the dumbest things I’ve read here.
How about you tell us how much you think you are personally out of pocket on this particular bad debt? Maybe we can get a pool together to cover your loss.
I recently had an interesting experience with this situation. My wife’s father died with an unpaid credit card bill of about $8000. The credit card company called, wanting their $8000. There was only a couple thousand cash and no property in the estate, so she told them to stuff it. We waited for them to file a claim against the estate, but they didn’t. Too small-potatoes for them, we assumed.
A couple of months later we get a call from another company about the same debt. This outfit buys the credit card debt of deceased people for pennies on the dollar and then tries to collect something. They offered to clear the debt for about $1000. My wife asked them, what happens if we don’t pay? Their answer was that nothing would happen. She eventually decided to pay them that $1000, saying that “Dad would have wanted this paid off.”
I thought it was kind of odd and ghoulish – buying the credit card balances of dead people? Ewww. But it demonstrated that the credit card companies do routinely blow off a lot of deceased-person bills without blinking.
I always assumed his debts were my debts because we were married. I’d, personally, pay them back as soon as I could because I feel it is my ethical obligation.
If he had a final paycheck, I’d sure expect them to endorse it over to me.
Which brings me to a related question: In the case of divorce, don’t the courts usually split the debt into two? Or do they split the debt by whose name the card was in?
I’m asking because my BIL’s wife keeps taking credit cards out without his knowledge. He’s finally signed up for credit protection that will notify him when an inquiry is made to the Big 3, so he can’t be surprised with another $10k debt. I’m sure he’d be very interested to know if he wasn’t going to be liable for all the charges she is putting on them in just her name if/once he files for divorce.
I am Cleverbot.
The CC company may not have a legal right to part of this insurance payment, but surely that wasn’t the man’s only asset. If, at death, he has a 401K, a checking account or an IRA, his legitimate debts need to be paid out of those funds to settle his estate.
It’s all very well and good to say his creditors should cancel his debts, but you don’t expect those who hold assets in his name to say “well, he’s dead so the money is mine, ALL MINE!”, do you? Certainly not. Write off to bad debt in the event of death should only occur when the decedant has no assets to clear those debts.
StG