I have seen the future.

Debt does NOT move with the estate. Creditors take from the estate, but the inheritor is NOT on the hook for any debt left over.

From:

glitteringlynx.livejournal.com

Sorry, you're right. I was saying it wrong. It's been many years since I worked in collections.

From:

seriesfinale.livejournal.com

Yeah, when my mother-in-law died of cancer, we were told by SBC that we either had to pay out the rest of her phone/internet contract (just over a year and a half), or pay a $500 "cancellation fee" for "breaking the contract."

I mean, I understand it was a binding contract, but this blew my mind, and, given the timing of it all, really upset my wife and infuriated me.

Anyway, I don't know how Broadcrest Foothill Apartment Homes thought this would end for them

From:

vagabond27.livejournal.com

Thanks for voicing things this way, a lot of people get very upset (completely understandably), when this kind of stuff comes up and forget that companies count on this stuff.

There has to be a better, non shitty ass way of doing it though. Its not like people JUST started signing contracts places and then dying, it isnt freakin' new.

Maybe even a letter that says "sorry about your loss, here's a fruit basket, so you know here's the outstanding money you owe and we'll give you a year extension" or something. If companies thought about shit like that they'd make a ton more money AND make the world a better place to be. >:|

From:

seriesfinale.livejournal.com

Well, that's the thing about it. They really handled it badly, completely cold fish to the situation. I will never use SBC again for anything, and it's not entirely about the policy.

I don't know if SBC necessarily "counted" on my dead mother-in-law's contract, but I understand that it was a binding contract. However, you'd think they could have a separate cancellation fee in cases of death--I mean, it's not like she bailed on them for Comcast or because she could no longer afford it, but that's how their policies treated it and how their representatives acted.

From:

They ought to have been carrying insurance against the eventuality of the death of the debtor. How much would you care to wager that their "insurance" was a worthless Credit Default Swap?

Edited Date: 2009-02-09 06:22 pm (UTC)

From:

chrisrw109.livejournal.com

That seems fishy actually. Unless you were on the contract they can't make *you* pay. They can make her estate pay though.

From:

Sorry- I'd just tell them they can go to Hell and collect it from her themselves. (So what if that's the wrong forwarding address for her?)

From:

gothpanda.livejournal.com

I'm with you ladyfox7oaks. Most collections people will back off if you are forceful with them and inform them that you're not going to pay, EVER.

From:

What are they going to do? Get blood from a turnip? If you- YOURSELF, Personally and specifically aren't on the accounts/papers as a debtor/responsible party... really- have they got any leg to stand on? Not usually.

From:

gothpanda.livejournal.com

Additionally, if you make it very clear that you CANNOT and WILL NOT pay EVER, they will likely stop bugging you, because collector's are paid according to their collections returns. If you aren't going to pay then you're a waste of their time!

From:

missysedai.livejournal.com

Oh, for fuck's sweet sake.

From:

lonebear.livejournal.com

In most states the law is that if the creditor wants to recover a debt they must go through probate. Keith Olbermann on Countdown hit Bank of America on this last week.

A man called to tell them that his mother had died and to close the account. The CSR* said "wouldn't you like to help your mother by clearing this debt?" The poor man told them to go through probate.

*Customer Service Representative

From:

Normally, the lease covers death as an exception. If it doesn't explicitly, it probably is required to cover it implicitly. The creditor needs to go through probate.
There might be a financial / family law in that jurisdiction that makes divorced spouses financially responsible / collective until one of them re-marries, which is the basis of alimony justification in at least one jurisdiction. This is California, so that might be the case.

Debtor still has to go through probate, and should have been carrying insurance to cover this eventuality.

From:

Erm... what? I've never seen any such thing in a lease for property, and I'm certain that legal contracts continue despite the death of a participant. Of course, I don't live in the US so my legal knowledge might be completely backwards.

That said, you're exactly correct that the landlord needs to go through probate - unless the will contains a section addressing ongoing expenses (and it should).

From:

The lease for my apartment has a section that states that the lease can* be broken if one of the signers of the lease dies. The management company carries insurance against the eventuality of the death of a signer, so that they may be materially recompensated for the income loss immediately. The cost of the insurance is of course subsidised by all residents under that property management.

I am fuzzy on the details, but I think the law in Texas - where I live - precludes property management on rented and leased properties from subverting the probate process or accelerating rent due to death, which is completely out of control of the signer. Obviously this is not a problem in the case of corporate entities who are leasing.

I'm fairly certain that is the case to prevent conflicts of interest in the case of property management between their income and their duties to maintain appropriate facilities - to discourage absentee landlords / slumlords.

From:

*can be broken by either party.

From:

Time to put on my devil's advocate hat. *Expects to be pelted with rotting fruit*

The landlord definitely sounds like they're being inhumane, but they may not be aware of current events. From their perspective, a tenant has simply vanished and stopped paying rent - most likely due to abandonment. In that case, the landlord's actions make perfect sense. Going after the husband makes sense if he co-signed the lease, presumably while they were still together.

Even if the landlord knows the tenant is deceased, one of the first things the executor of the estate needs to do is make sure any ongoing financial obligations are covered - and that includes paying rent. The executor, who may be the husband, has obviously failed to do so. Assuming rent is due at the end of the month, the landlord is owed two months rent, and that's sufficient cause to end the lease in exactly this manner.

A confused ex-husband and inept reporting do not a villain make.

From:

angelcorrine.livejournal.com

It looks like this is exactly what happened.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29044476/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29053020/

(Landlord states that they were unaware of the circumstances, dropped the demand)

From:

Landlord has changed their story from the original.

From:

How so? It's extremely obvious from the original story you linked that the reporter didn't bother contacting the landlord - that being why I referred to it as inept reporting.

From:

I don't think so.

Money goes to the next of kin first, and any that's left over goes to paying debts. Not the other way around.

From:

Uh, no, money goes to DEBTS first and any that's left over goes towards whoever you left it to.

You don't give all your money to your children, then have "what's left over" go to paying off your outstanding debt.

From:

People's next of kin are not liable for the deceased person's debt unless it was a debt they shared, like a mortgage.

From:

I'm pretty sure your *estate* can be hit up for outstanding bills, even though your children can't be.

From:

All right.

From:

corkdorkdan.livejournal.com

Next of kin are not liable, but the deceased's estate is. If your inheritance is coming from the estate, the creditor's get a crack at it first. However, if you're a beneficiary receiving a death benefit, like from a life insurance policy, that money bypasses the estate and is yours, and the debtors are not allowed to come after you for it. (Unless the debt is shared, I suppose, I'm not clear on that part.)

From:

Thanks.

From:

fearmeforiampink

That is true, yes (in America at least, by what is said above).

But the dead person still is liable for those debts. His estate has to settle them, and only after that is done, can it give what remains to the next of kin/others indicated by the will.

You can't take out a huge loan, die, and have the loan money go to your next of kin no strings attached..

From:

jerril

Coming to the party late here, but actually you can. You just need to get an insured loan, and die of the right reasons :D

I have a relative with a secured line of credit, which automatically comes with enough life insurance to cover whatever the outstanding balance is. But she can't die of a pre-diagnosed condition within 2 years of opening the line of credit, can't die of suicide, and I'm pretty sure can't die of misadventure although not positive. Accident, death for medical reasons for any reason after 2 years, death for an undiagnosed condition within the first two years, murder, etc, are largely covered.

You can buy insurance for your credit card balance under much the same terms and conditions, too - in this case your premium is a fixed percentage of your balance.

But in these cases you still OWED that money, it's just the bank has life insurance policies out in your name and a contract that agrees those policies will forgive your debt.

From:

fearmeforiampink

Would that insurance apply if the money was still 'sitting around in your estate?

Anyway, interesting information, but as you say, your estate still ends up owing that money, it's just that said debt will be written off/paid off by the insurance.

From:

My question would be, - Given the extensive news coverage this particular crime had,- How in the hell did the landowner NOT know that the property had been detonated with a fuel bomb after the murders? Are they that clueless that they don't know their own properties? Or does their property manager keep them in the dark? Are they from another country completely? Maybe another planet?

From:

AND- after re-reading the article... I realize he's talking about one of the GUESTS that was at the house, but lives elsewhere.

GAH- yes- bad reporting and speed reading do not always mix...(Facepalm)

From:

I didn't know about the event, because I very conciously avoid the news. I prefer being infomed about events that are actually pertinent to my existence, and the news contains a shockingly low number of those.

From: