Scenario: Residing in Illinois, with his parents, is an intelligent, able-bodied 19 year old. He’s a non-student, working doing manual labor. He wants to move away from his parents, and live and work on his own 400 miles away.
One family member asserts that since he’s under 21, the parents will be responsible for any debts this young man acquires. Even if they do not cosign for any of his purchases. This family member also claims that as long as he lives with his parents, the parents can claim him as an exemption on their tax returns. These “facts” are used as arguments against his striking off on his own.
I suspect the family member’s assertions are not true. When queried for a cite, the family member can’t produce one, but invokes nebulous “state and local” ordinances and laws which said member feels would make it so.
Anybody got the straight dope? Cites appreciated when possible.
18 is legally an adult. Thats it. He is responsible for his own actions and debts unless there is a cosigner. The parents can use him as an exemption if he is still a full time college student only.
There are five basic tests for tax dependency under IRS rules, all five of which must be met. If this 19-year-old is employed full time, I doubt that his income is less than the annual exemption amount ($3,050 for 2003 returns).
The Illinois Department of Revenue uses the IRS definition of dependent for Illinois state income tax purposes.
Kind of a major concept for a subordinate clause don’cha think? Related to this, and relevant to ALL adults for that matter, is where responsibility lies in the event of a car wreck (I’m such a one trick pony). If he’s driving a car and causes an accident, all titled owners of that car bear responsibility for the accident and will be named in any lawsuits. If it were my 19 year old moving out of the house and making mischief of one kind and another and another and another…I’d either make him leave MY car at home or give him a going away present by signing away my interest in the car–and that means surrendering the old title and having a new one issued wihout my name on it.
Cite? Absent an employment relationship, or special facts supporting a negligent entrustment claim, this is not true. C’mon, no guessing in GQ. Qadgop, under Illinois law, a parent is generally not responsible for the debts of a 19 year old son/daughter. There is something called the Family Expense Act (I may have the title slightly wrong; I’m not at my office) that might make a parent responsible if (a) they are part of the same household; and (b) the purchase is for a necessary household item. But you said he would be living elsewhere, so that doesn’t apply.
Nitpick: Anyone can be claimed as a dependant on an income tax return as long as they are, you know, dependent on that person. For example, if you’re caring for an elderly relative, or a mentally challenged adult child, or just about anyone. The only caveat is that the person who’s claimed on someone else’s tax return cannot claim themselves of their own return. At least, that’s how I understand the law.
Don’t worry about what he does when he is 400 miles away. What you have to worry about is that he will be back. I’ve been there and so have many others.
I think Inigo is mixing up how auto insurance works, with the owners of the car in quesiton being sued.
If my son (who does not live with me) comes over to my house and borrows my car, my auto policy will cover him (famiy auto policy) If he has an at fault accident my insurance pays.
Now would I be sued over that accident? Assuming that I did not loan a car with a defect, or to a drunk, the answer is yeah I could repeat could be sued, but probably not. Hell about a year ago, I got sued over a car I sold 12 years ago. I was removed from the suit. Don’t forget sued != lose.
If the owners of a car that was in an accident while being driven by someone else always got sued, it would cost one hell of a lot more to rent a car from Hertz then it does.
Jeez, ya scared me for a second there, Dad. Was trying to figure out just what I’d done or might do that you didn’t want to be legally responsible for.
(for those not in the know, Qadgop the Mercotan is my father and I am 19.)
The owner of a car involved in an accident can sometimes be liable under a theory called “negligent entrustment.” Under this theory, the owner is liable, not for causing the accident directly, but for being negligent in letting someone drive his car in the first place. This might be the case if you loan your car to someone who’s drunk, or who you know is a dangerous driver.
The car owner isn’t automatically liable, just potentially. However, being the car’s owner does increase the risk of being named in a lawsuit, so it might be prudent to have your 19-year-old son’s car in his own name instead of yours.
Not guessing & not mixing up (just not clear :))–I do this for a living.
[HIJACK]
If you, as the owner of a car, let someone drive it, YOU as well as the DRIVER will be named in any litigation arising from the use of that car. The kid hops in dad’s car and causes a wreck, of course HE’s liable, but so is the owner of trhe car for allowing him to drive it. The vast majority of car crashes do not result in litigation because all the victim wants is compensation for the loss–that’s what insurance does.
Anyone who has leased a car will remember that the lease company can dictate the minimum levels of liability coverage on the policy in addition to insisting on being named as an additional insured on the policy. This is because they, as the legal owners of the car, are at risk of sharing liability in an accident.
Rental car companies carry liability insurance on their own cars that protects only them in the event a renter causes trouble–the cost of that insurance is part of the daily rental fee.
Moral: Do not let anyone drive YOUR car if you are not 100% sure they will refrain from stupidity–it WILL come back to you.
You may do this for a living, but your claims that the owner of a vehicle is automatically responsible under Illinois law if a family member causes a wreck (or injures someone) are flat-out wrong. (As I and others have said before, there are negligent entrustment, agency/respondiat superior and other circumstances that could make the owner liable, but these are exceptions to the general rule.)
I could trump your appeal to your own authority by pointing out that I’m an Illinois attorney with 18 years experience, but I’ll do better than that:
Parents are not responsible for the torts of their children (even minor children) merely because of the parent-child relationship. Bishop v. Morich, 250 Ill.App.3d 43, 621 N.E.2d 43 (1st Dist. 1993) (child driving parent’s car causes accident - parents not responsible.) Parents/owners of vehicle are not responsible for child’s negligence unless, at time of accident, child was engaged in doing parent’s business. Stellmach v. Olson, 242 Ill.App.3d 61, 614 N.E.2d 129 (2nd Dist 1993).
Please stop posting on legal issues unless you know what you are talking about. I’m not trying to be a jerk here, but you just wasted 15 minutes of my time that I’ll never get back, because of your second post (which continued to assert your point, even after others told you that you were wrong.)
This simply states that something other than a parent/child relationship must exist in order for negligent entrustment (N.E.) to be established. This is out of context of my original assertion. I never brought relationship of driver to owner into the argument. I only advised caution when allowing *anyone * to drive a car of which one is a titled owner–in this case we are talking about an emancipated 19 y/o, but it could just as well be next door neighbor Biff.
Again, an irrelevant cite. I have not been prattling on about “Yer gunna git skrewed cuz yer kid’s drivin’ yer car.” I’ve been prattling on about legal owners of a car being careful about to whom they provide a vehicle. By adding this you are either forgetting that we are talking about a legal adult child or you are implying that the parent/child relationship provides immunity from N.E. to a legally adult child.
If my interpretations of your legal cites are wrong, I’ll shut the hell up about this whole thing. But if they’re not, then the pro bono advice you’re laying down is misleading and could cause someone a major headche because they thought this was an issue that they did not have to worry about.
This whole argument strays a bit from the specifics of the OP I admit, but it seems relevant. I’ll retract my entire presence in this thread and consider myself a tad less ignorant if anyone can demonstrate that the hypothetical parent in the OP has absolutely nothing to worry about with regard to N.E. If this can not be done, then what harm have I done with respect to the OP (apart from getting a little off topic) by bringing up this point and suggesting that these “exceptions to the general rule” can easily be avoided by retitling a car?
