No, I nitpicked and bashed on the parent who blames his kids for his problems and who gave her a gift with no strings, and now endlessly punishes her for it.
She’s just finished grad school. If, instead of an inheritance, she got her first professional job and her income went up by $30k. Would that change your opinion? All the arguments would still apply, it seems to me.
I’m not saying it’s wrong to give her dad the money. She should, if she wants to. But people are saying she’s a “terrible person” and “a shit” if she doesn’t. Where does that end? Is she a shit if doesn’t pay off the mortgage he took for her? Is she a shit if, in twenty years, her income pays for an upper-middle-class life style and he’s living a middle class lifestyle.
This is another consideration. Joan and her husband were totally prepared to turn down this windfall initially. The idea of passing up a gift of $30K “out of pride” is hard to relate to, particularly if we’re talking about a couple trying to save for a house, cars, and childcare expenses. But it tells me this particular sum of money is only as important to them as they want it to be. If they were initially fine with having $0 from mom, then taking a smaller cut of $30K and comping some of Dad’s debt shouldn’t be a complicated decision.
It may well be that the reason she’s gunshy about accepting gifts is that one time her dad paid for half her college education and then spent the next ten years twisting the knife about how she ruined him.
If it were me, I would have volunteered to help pay this loan as soon as I was making money. Because I personally would not want my parents to be in debt for over a decade, paying who knows what kind of interest rates, for my college expenses.
My husband and I have every intention of paying for our daughters’ higher educations. But that’s only because it’s within our means to do so without taking out loans. If by some twist of fate, we do have to go into serious debt to help them, I should hope they won’t be indifferent to this problem. Especially if they end up in lucrative careers thanks to their college education!
I’m not sure what baggage you’re bringing to this conversation, but the dad seems like a pill. I said the same thing as Manda JO, that the daughter could pay off every cent of the loan, and the odds of the dad’s complaining behavior being changed by that are pretty slim. That’s not a comment on men, that’s a comment on human nature: people aren’t spontaneously released of their anxiety (and possible depression in this case) because of a big gift or gesture. Complainers gonna complain.
I note that you didn’t criticize my post when I said the exact same thing as Manda Jo. Is that a comment on the gender of the poster?
And furthermore, the daughter has zero obligation to go to a free school. Choosing a college is for many people the first step in real adulthood, from making one’s first major life decision, to taking the first step to an independent life. If parents make a promise to pay for school, they need to set parameters for what types of schools they can and can’t pay for. I think the daughter ought to be cheered for choosing a school that helped remove her somewhat from a family situation that sounds pretty bad.
We know from Lisa’s post he won’t. He is saying that the divorce gave him PSTD. He hasn’t gotten over it. And the chances he stops using his daughter as the sounding board for every issue within his marriage are slim. $30k isn’t really going to change his finances that much - it isn’t change your life money - especially if your ex has more money than she knows what to do with and you don’t and you are still bitter about the divorce.
Mom has money - enough to gift it at the “we are avoiding tax consequences” rate. Dad doesn’t and - with what sounds like some justification - likely has issues that the divorce put him in a more precarious financial position.
If Joan wants to turn down the money anyway, maybe she should talk to her Mom - “we don’t need it right now (open a 529 for the kid please), but Dad is struggling with those loans, I think he agreed to pay for college out of pride and really couldn’t afford it - why don’t you see if you couldn’t take them over for him.”
It would appear, from what’s been shared, that it’s quite possible that Mom’s generosity is to address guilt over her infidelity blowing the family apart. Also, it could be that the daughter subconsciously chose uni away, passing on the free ride, to punish her parents financially. And it’s surely the case that Dad is using his divorce settlement conditions and costs to bully his own child.
These people are all using money to express their emotional baggage it seems. Throwing in large cash awards, no matter who’s pockets they end up lining, seems a twitch like throwing gas on a fire, to me.
I’m a little surprised by the comments here suggesting Jane should start writing checks for her dad.
No, Jane is under no moral obligation to pay her father’s loan. The loan was his burden to bear and he should do so gracefully. Guilting Jane about it is a parental failing but it’s not the worst I’ve ever heard of. If Jane paid off her father’s loan, it would be very nice of her. She’s nicer than everyone else in this family for even seriously considering paying it off. There is nothing wrong with rejecting money from her mother. She learned from her father that people often say they can contribute more than they can really afford to. She also learned that even gifts that seem freely given come with later expectations that add tension to relationships. Her mother’s actions in the marriage show she is not perfectly dependable or honest, even to people she purports to love. I wouldn’t want to take money I didn’t really need from someone like that either.
Dad seems like a pretty good father. He loves and maintains a good relationship with Jane but he isn’t perfect. Who is? I don’t think he made terrible money decisions based on this story. Retaining a house after the divorce was, in hindsight, a bad decision but divorces are emotional decisions and homes are emotional decisions. I can understand why a man who just lost his marriage didn’t want to lose his home at the same time. If the real estate market was rising, he probably expected that staying in the house, saving brokerage commissions, and benefiting from even reasonable rates of appreciation would lead to financial security when he eventually repaid the mortgage. That’s the American dream. Borrowing to pay for his daughter’s imminent college education was the only choice he had under the divorce agreement. He couldn’t go back in time and commit to years worth of saving to avoid borrowing. He refused to pay for his daughter’s wedding, which was both in his control and a very wise decision. It is suggested that he was bad for taking the $500 (five hundred dollars), however, this isn’t entirely clear to me. This was a joint account that he opened when Jane was young. Did he contribute the money to the account? Did he ever tell Jane that the money he contributed was her money exclusively or did she just presume it was all hers because he hadn’t used any of it for a while? He used this money to attend her wedding. Which he paid back. I’m not sure who looks worse in light of his taking $500, so I’ll call it a wash. He should stop guilting his daughter about his finances, his decision to keep the house, and he should stop attacking Jane’s mother. Those actions reflect poorly on him.
Can I pipe in to suggest that Jane’s husband is an asshole for believing the his father-in-law had any obligation to pay for his wedding? I’m convinced in life that adults shouldn’t expect the ability to spend other people’s money (see above, Jane, having no obligation to repay her father). It makes no sense for Jane’s husband to be mad that Jane’s father borrowed money to educate his daughter. He forfeited his right to be mad that Jane’s father complains about the loan repayments when he complained that Dad wouldn’t pitch in for his wedding.
People also seem to be suggesting that Mom might be using the money to control her daughter in some ways, for example, by promising the money and then refusing to give it to Jane if she disapproves of how Jane spends it. Jane’s mother doesn’t come across well during the marriage but nothing PunditLisa said indicates Mom is being manipulative, so I’ll reserve judgment. That said, I agree that Jane is right to be cautious of taking this gift even if it could improve her life. I have known lots of wealthy people and have been very privy to how they use “gifts” and promises of money to exert control in the lives of others. Money often comes with strings. Some of them are invisible trip-wires. It can also lead to family resentments when there is even a hint of unfairness (which is less of an issue here because Jane is an only child). I don’t know why Jane resisted taking money from her mother but, in my considerable experience, people who live independently of their wealthy parents’ money are happier than those who rely on it.
I wouldn’t have gone to a school if I’d understood it put my parents in severe, life-altering debt. It sounds like this was concealed from her at the time. I take a very dim view of people who love to be “generous” with money they can’t afford or don’t have, and then when they are in crisis, blame the people they were generous to. I don’t like it when, within families, the frugal, careful people are seen as being lucky and having money and are selfish if they don’t help out the emotional spendthrifts.
I think it’d be really nice for her to help her dad pay off the loan. But I am confused that so many people have such ANGER about her–she’s a shit, a terrible person, she should be ashamed if she doesn’t–but no one thinks anything of dad’s behavior–he put her in an terrible emotional trap with the house and the college, and he’s used that trap to twist the knife for years. That’s appalling and I don’t know why it doesn’t bother people.
Just wondering if you see anger in my posts towards her or anyone in this story. Hopefully not, because I assume nothing about the moral failings about any of these strangers.
In just about every thread like this I’ve ever seen on the web, no matter how much the OP explains the situation, within reason not book length, it leaves all kinds of room for each respondent to paint their own picture of what’s ‘really’ going on, based on their own experiences and prejudices. I frequent another forum specializing in personal finance, lots of advice seeking threads, always the case.
So here it’s the degree of ‘financial irresponsibility’ of ‘dad’. It was made clear in some follow posts by OP that ‘dad’ is not all squared away. But the idea that helping him with the old school debt would just be ‘pissing away money and he’d be right back in debt’, is kind of made up by some posters. I mean maybe that’s true, but how would we actually know that.
‘Dad’ has a sense he’s been done wrong. A lot of people do, especially as life goes on. Sometimes it’s aimed at an ex or other family members, sometimes all people of a given sex, lots of variations. But it doesn’t mean you’re a complete wreck and incapable of acting basically responsibly.
Again my vote was that daughter helping with the debt would be a nice thing to do. I hope I’d do that if in her shoes and my kids would if I were in his. But if the daughter decided, no, she has very good reason to consider the windfall from mom her money (which is the intention from mom, I guess), and let dad take car of himself, would I condemn her as a ‘shit’, or even care, if I was an acquaintance of hers (much less just a disembodied voice on the internet)? No.
Apparently, she wasn’t even told that going to the out-of-area school was a financial burden, and she was accepted at her chosen school with the blessing of both parents. Why should she be responsible for knowing finances if nobody bothers to tell her?
Moreover, no, there aren’t necessarily “other opportunities down the road” on her chosen career path, or such opportunities may pose a major burden. This depends on career field and what she wants to do with her life, of course, but if you come out of a third- or fourth-tier university without the internships and connections that come with more highly ranked schools, you are at a very serious disadvantage in getting into graduate school or an entry position in your field. (Taking an unpaid internship at the age of 28, e.g., is a lot harder than taking that same internship at 20 or 21.) Sure, you can pick a different career path or rearrange your life goals, but don’t pretend it’s all the same.
Would it change matters any if the situation was reversed and it was mom who paid for half her college education and then spent the next ten years twisting the knife about how she ruined her own mother? I think not, but you apparently do. Why?
The kid doesn’t owe her dad anything. The $500 stolen from her shows he doesn’t respect her money. He’s a poor money manager. When he agreed to the terms of the divorce, he knew what he was making.
Does paying the student loan impact the father in that he can’t buy a new car every few years, or is it more like he can’t afford an apartment on his own and hits up the food pantry once a month? If her father’s showering at the gym because he’s sleeping in his office, that’s one thing. But if the father just is whining and complaining about a deal he agreed to, I’d sit him down and tell him his financial problems are his own.