Antonius Divitis: Salve Regina

post in Mechelen at the church of St. Rombout in 1504, but he had fallen into debt, and left his job in a hurry in 1505, evidently fleeing from ...

My mother left a large debt after her death, will i be responsible to her creditors, and can the creditor ?

Dec 05, 2008 by dar1597 | Posted in Personal Finance

force me to pay. What do I do!!

No, you are not responsible unless you co-signed on any of her debt. The estate is held responsible. This is settled in Probate by the executor (will) or the administrator (intestate) of the estate.

After death of parents,who is responsible for debt left behind?

Jul 07, 2008 by jonsie | Posted in Personal Finance

My parents just bought a house for $67,000. They now own two homes. My sister lives in the other, but I will more than likely be beneficiary to both. My parents are not in good health and may not live much longer. They have been supplementing my sister's poor decision and spending habits for years with what money they have. My concern is that the house "that is" paid off will suddenly have a couple, or a few mortgages on it, to once again support my sister. My parents have told me on several occasions that when they pass I am to handle the estate, as they know I will do this in a fair manner. I am concerned that my parents generosity towards my sister may result in substantial debt on the properties when they pass. My family members are as follows - My brother is the oldest, followed by my older sister, then me, followed by my younger sister- whom is now living in the house we grew up in, this house is paid off. I can not find any information on who is responsible for remaining debts.
The whole thing that we're worried about is that their debt will be more than the actual value of both houses. We don't want to lose our house to cover their expenses. What do we do in that case? If we leave it up to the state, do we have to pick up the rest of the expenses or does the state write it off. I am not going to lose what we worked so hard for because of someone else's irresponsibilities.

down&out IRS after me where do I turn for help/in debt councling/paying taxes to the bush war 0 left 4 me?

Sep 24, 2007 by Phinnies | Posted in United States

What more can I say! I find myself in debt and the only resaon to keep on going is the fact that death taxes and to be alive is to keep on untill what

I hear ya...

.

Credit Card debt after death of ex?

Jul 22, 2008 by Shelley L | Posted in Personal Finance

At the time of our divorce, our bills were divided up and put in the divorce decree. My ex recently passed away, and suddenly last month I start getting letters from a collection agency for Capital One (the bill the ex got in the decree) wanting me to pay. I have faxed them a copy of the divorce decree. Is this sufficient to get them off my back? The ex left his life insurance to his fiancee, by the way. No other assets.

Debt after Death?

Feb 26, 2008 by seafoamgreen_225 | Posted in Personal Finance

If I marry someone with debt and he dies am I (or any family member) responsbile for his debt he has left behind?

25 years in banking.. I'll try to clarify.

Marriage generally does does not make you responsible for unsecured debts. If he/she gets a credit card on their own and you never sign the applicaton, and never get a card or charge anything to it,(note ALL of that) then you are not responsible for the debt. Collectors often lie to widows about this, btw. I recently counciled a woman who's hsuband racked up 100K in casino debt and she was able to walk away, and he's still alive.

However, if aloan is secured by a mortgage or another asset (car loan, boat loan) the same principal is true, but the lender can come after their collateral, take it and sell it. But if you didn;t sign the note you are not responsible for the remainder.
There are some states (community property) where a husband and wife are usually required to be on both note and mortgage. WHat also can happen is that one spouse has a credit card, defaults and the credit crd puts a lien on a family house. States laws vary as to that creditor's rights to seize or sell the house or force a sale and usually those lienholders enforce their rights when you go to sell or refinance.

How do you not pass your debt on to your spouse upon death?

Sep 29, 2006 by impossble_dream | Posted in Personal Finance

Im in poor health and in a lot of debt for medical bills. I also want to get married, but I know I cant pay off the hospital debts any time soon, and I dont want my future wife to have to be left with the debt if I die. My life insurance is only $25,000 which hardly touches what I owe... any advice?

Debt does not pass on automatically to the spouse or the family upon a person's demise. Especially if the spouse has never been a party to the debt or has agreed to be indebted. You can simply get married by maintaining your finance separately and do not allow your wife to sign on any debt such as credit card etc jointly. If you have bank accounts, they should be in "joint tenancy with the right of survivorship". Those kind of assets will be able to by pass probate, transfer directly to your wife and cannot be attached by your creditors. You should consult a CPA or a tax attorney before you get marry. With to days medical advances, you may be counting yourself too short. But for a peace of mind, plan your finance in advance and it will be one less item to worry.

Here is an article that may shed some light abiut the subject:

http://www.winstonandwinston.com/art%205%20deceased_persons.htm

Would debt be written off on death?

Jun 17, 2008 by thisisbrilliant | Posted in Credit

If I have no estate,no house,a few possesions,no savings but a large debt should anything happen to me would the debt be left to pay off by my relatives I am also single with no kids.

They would go to your estate. If any of your accounts are joint, they the joint name on the account would become responsible. No, they cannot go after family for the money owed if their names are not on unless their names are on the particular account. ***

A strange Way to Promote Freedom? debt, death and disaster?

Jun 18, 2007 by MISES.ORG | Posted in Current Events

L.Rockwell
Many people around the world, actually most people, have been convinced for some time that the US is being run by a power-mad lunatic. The video of the Saddam killing, which crystallized the extent to which extremist Shiites have taken over the country, has galvanized millions and confirmed the worst suspicions about what is going on in Iraq.
How can anyone doubt it when the pre-occupation president is lynched by an angry mob shouting "Go to Hell" along with the name Muqtada al-Sadr, the radical cleric? Theocracy in Iraq, here we come, courtesy of US taxpayers. The US enabled not freedom but a coup by crazies.
Every stated ambition of the US has been turned on its head. Instead of democracy, Iraq gets military domination prior to Islamic dictatorship. Instead of punishing and thereby discouraging terrorism, the Iraq calamity has radicalized a generation. Instead of bringing peace and freedom, the US has brought instability, bloodshed, and unending upheaval.
Even if you believe that Bush was only pursuing a personal vendetta against Saddam, the US has managed to do what would have been unthinkable five years ago: made Saddam a folk hero for those looking for martyrdom in the jihad. Whereas many in the Islamic world once loathed his secularism, Bush's bumbling show trial and lynching have turned Saddam into an icon.
Among those undecided about Bush's war, his speech on the evening of his "surge" of 20,000 more troops probably solidified their opinion.
Consider his statement toward the end:
In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy – by advancing liberty across a troubled region. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom and help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East.
In general, it sounds fine, more or less. So how precisely does Bush plan to advance this "liberty"? Why, by continued military occupation, threats, violence, martial law, and death, this time without caution or wincing.
In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents – but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods...
He treats the problem in Iraq as if it were akin to pest control. Mow down the opposition and, mutatis mutandis, once and for all the opposition is gone. All who remain will be lovers of Bush-style freedom, which seems eerily like the freedom that we've been told that Saddam once guaranteed. That is to say, so long as you agree with those in charge, you are left alone (unless a mistake occurs). But if you object, your only choice is to kill or be killed.
Apparently there is nothing force cannot accomplish. No one can be shocked that Bush has chosen the path of more force, even to the absurd lengths that he took it during his speech equating obedience with freedom. This is the path he set out on after 9-11 – an unrelated event which he again dragged into the Iraq equation – and the path he has stayed on ever since.
He knows no other way. Teaching Bush about subtleties such as diplomacy and trade is like telling a box turtle to write a novel. It is just not part of his intellectual equipment. Bush knows how to order people to bomb things, so order he does.
And yet the whole history of the world teaches that force has its limits, though you can always count on one great ruler in every age to ignore that lesson. Growing up, we were taught to sneer at Soviet leaders and third-world despots who believed that force alone could shape their world. Now we see our own US president fall prey to that delusion, not only in politics but also in economics.
The day of the speech, an email sent to Republican leaders showed up in my inbox. It goes into more detail about Bush's plan, which has nothing to do with existing reality. But someone at the White House typed this, and there are probably a few who even believe it.
Particularly intriguing are the sections on economics. For those who understand the failure of socialism and other centrally planned government projects, the memo is a very bad joke. But it does reveal the extent of the hubris of the White House.
According to the Bush plan, Iraq is being told to "deliver economic resources and provide essential services to all areas and communities."
Well, such a plan has been tried before, in places such as Russia and today in Venezuela. Thank goodness the US government doesn’t try this at home. You know exactly what you would get if the government attempted to provide all resources and services. The whole country would look like a military base, public school, post office, and urban housing project rolled into one.
If that's not enough, Iraq is also being told to "capitalize and execute jobs-producing programs," "match U.S. efforts to create jobs with longer term sustainable Iraqi programs," and "focus more economic effort on relatively secure areas as a magnet for employment and growth." Oh and the US will "help" through "greater integration of economic strategy with military effort."
At what point will the Bush administration wake up and realize that its effort is unworkable, that the costs are ghastly, that the best strategy is quick exit, three years ago? Well, the truth is that many people do realize this. The problem is that there is a huge machine running full speed and it is benefiting too many people. Tens of billions, hundreds of billions, are landing in the pockets of well-connected elites, and they want to keep the party going as long as possible.
For those who are disgusted and demoralized by this administration's failure to think and act rationally, consider that the history books have already been written. Bush is wildly unpopular here and abroad. There is not a living soul who is willing to call the Iraq war a success. At the end of the day, all that he will leave is debt, death, and disaster. This is indisputable.

Zzzzzzzz...huh? Wha? Did you say something?

My husbands grandfather died. And left him with a family debt of $40 K, Does he have to pay it?

May 22, 2006 by Chris | Posted in Law & Ethics

My husband borrowed $60 from his grandfather about 7 years ago, and he never asked for a payment. Family members told him that most likely the debt would be forgiven in the will, since, each grandchild expected to receive some inheritance of cash. Well, his mother who is unsure about the whole thing and is the executor says each grand child is getting about $20 K, and my husband owes, his uncle $40K that has a 5% interest rate since 1999. Only a year before his death, did gfather ask for his money back. So, my hsbd, took out a mortgage on our home to pay him. Upon coming to his gfather with the money, his gfather did not accept the money. We have not seen the will, isn't there a probate, that all beneficiaries should attend. Would you suspect there is something that is not completely right here? Please assist with an anser to any part of this question.
Sorry it is $60000, my husband borrowed from his grandfather. Now his mother says that he will have to pay his uncle $40000 in order to repay this debt.
Gramdmother died 20 years ago and is out of the picture.
Gramdmother died 20 years ago and is out of the picture.

His estate is liable for it. If there's an executor, they may be bound to settle the debt, depending on the agreement grandfather entered into when the debt was created. You should consult an attorney.

Death and debt?

Jul 19, 2007 by Jewls | Posted in Credit

My mother passed away and left behind a 16,000 credit card debt. Who is responsible for paying this debt? Does it die as well. My mother was a house wife...my father works out of the country and any estates are in a family trust. I keep reading things about creditors collecting from the estate but if the estate is in a trust, can they still go after the money??

Yes and they should