I’ve been browsing recently through old digitised newspapers for pieces related to my family history, and came across this little notice, written by my grandfather in the 1940’s
“PLEASE Take Notice, that I, <name>, of <address>, will Not be Responsible for any
Debts Incurred in my name without my written authority.”
He’s dead now, and I can’t ask him, but I’m wondering what would prompt a person to put a notice like that in the local newspaper, and what the purpose of it would be (I do have a guess, but I’m going to reserve it for the moment to see if it comes up from some knowledgeable person, independent of my priming the pump)
Used to be the case that married women had limited or no property rights, and one corrollary was that their husbands were generally held responsible for their debts (as otherwise nobody would give them credit). This common law position was reversed by statute at differnt times in different jurisidctions but, until it was reversed, where unhappy differences arose between spouses notices of this kind were not uncommon. More usually the notice would specify who was unable to incur obligations on behalf of the person inserting the notice.
As Northern Piper says, such a notice might also be necessary or advisable in connection with the dissolution of a partnership. Or, if you were in the habit of honouring the obligations incurred by your spendthrift but adult child and you had decided no longer to do so, the notice might be advisable in order to counter any argument that, by your past practice of honouring the obligations, you had implicitly represented that your child was authorised to incur them on your behalf.
But, again, in all those cases you would normally say who it was whose obligations you would not honour.
Yes, the date is within two years or so of when I know my grandparents were divorced, so I wondered whether this might be a known and common situation - that people would extend credit to a married woman on the understanding that her husband would generally be responsible for the debt, and as a bloke separating from your spouse, you might need to make some sort of explicit statement - “no, I’m not responsible for her any more”
I’ve found the same thing from my grandfather. Several times, I think, including one between the births of his kids. (I know there are other reasons he could have done it, but I also know he left with the intent of ending the marriage quite a few times, so I assume it was for that reason.)
I remember that newspapers used to be loaded with such notices, always appearing in the classifieds - "I will no longer be held responsible for debts occurred by anyone other than myself", or similar wording.
Given the decline of print journalism, I wonder how effective these are now (from a legal perspective, I doubt that they were ever effective from a practical perspective). Would posting the same disclaimer on Facebook have a similar effect?
Aren’t there still newspapers that sustain themselves largely on the business of printing public notices? I don’t think posting a public notice on Facebook has the same legal standing.
It really is a anachronism. Just last month we had to publish a notice in a newspaper that we were bringing a certain claim and that if anyone else had a claim they had to join our lawsuit. I’m sure the number of people who saw it was approximately zero.
The whole case is on hold for six weeks while we wait and see if anyone responds.
The rules are very specific (so Facebook wouldn’t work). We had to publish it x number of times in the newspaper of the greatest circulation in the county.
You and I may know that, and granddad may have known it, but if one of his creditors didn’t, and abandoned the debt because of it, then it did its job.
A father in an 1884 novel on his runaway 19-year-old son:
This seems to have been quite a common practice for parents of estranged children who didn’t want to be held responsible for the children’s debts. I have no idea what their legal status was.
Nor do I really understand the apparently related concept, which I’ve seen mentioned elsewhere, of “giving [a minor son living independently] his time”.
Yes, part of the problem was that in some circumstances someone was legally obligated to pay the debts of a partner/spouse/child etc. so in the situation where you wanted to stop being responsible, some formal notice was required. And in some cases, publicly disavowing the responsibility was sufficient. Publishing in a widely read newspaper was considered sufficient to have notified all potential creditors. (IIRC, wasn’t this sort of newspaper notice also what was done by bankruptcy trustees as a final notice for creditors to submit claims?)
Quora.com seems to be coming down on the side of “not legally sound” but then seems to suggest it may be in some circumstances if backed up by other actions. i.e you can publish the notice “not responsible for wife’s debts” if separated and have agreed to financial separation. But, you can’t simply publish “I’m not covering her debts” and make it stick if the law says you have to cover them.
You can’t disavow debts you are liable for, but you can be liable for debts that wouldn’t exist if you had properly told people about your wife, business partner. or credit card.
1)You would want to notify people that the dissolution of partnership had already occured: otherwise they might reasonably wait until the divorce was finalized.
You would want to notify people about the dissolution of partnership: otherwise they might reasonably claim that there was an expectation that marriage was permanent.
I see the discussion about it not being meaningful now, and about it not being meaningful for a married couple: I don’t find the second convincing at all: If I want to revoke my credit card, I write to the credit card company and tell them so. If I wanted to revoke the presumption that my wife could enter into contracts for me, I took resonable steps, not limited to but including publication.
