Should it be a crime for credit card companies to go after..

quote:

---

I don't think the CC companies can collect a child's debt from a parent just because of the bloodline.

---

This. If there's no money in the deceased person's estate to cover the debt, tell them frick off.

quote:

---

I doubt the CC company did that unless the parent had signed guaranteeing the debt for their child. Are you sure you have all the facts?

---

I know for a fact they were chased for the credit card debt of their son. Perhaps it wasn't the CC company themselves but a collection agency. That would probably make more sense I guess, as collection agencies are known for scummy tactics.

quote:

---

ETA: A person's estate is made up of both assets and liabilities. The CC company can file a claim against the estate. Perhaps that is what happened?? As far as I know (and any estate attorney is better qualified to address this issue) any creditor can file a claim against the assets of a person's estate, limited to the value of the assets in the estate.

---

True that - but he had no net assets. There's no way his car was worth his debt. I guess they had a right to the car, but even in that case - shouldn't the collection agency/cc company be communicating with the attorney handling the estate and not the agrieved parents?


Just seemed kind of dick to me. I think if your a CC company handing out money to 18 year olds then you should understand you're taking a risk - if they pass unexpectedly they're unlikely to have much assets and/or life insurance - so if you're going to make that loan you should be prepared to eat it if they die.

quote:

---

handing out money to 18 year olds

---

I think you just answered the question.

Unless the child was emancipated, his parents were almost certainly required by the cc issuer to be signers (translation: co-owners) on the credit card and, therefore, co-owners of the balance on the account.

quote:

---

so if you're going to make that loan you should be prepared to eat it if they die.

---

Most prudent lenders, and our legal system, don't agree with you on this. However, I doubt in this case, the CC company thought the child was going to die. They just required an 18 year old to have his parents co-own the account before they would issue the cc to the child. Just my guess.

And if that is the case, the parents are most definitely responsible (legally) for paying the debt.

It's up to the bank if they require a parent to guarantee a child's loan or cc account. Your bank must have known you were a good credit risk.

I am not up-to-date on Louisiana law as to what the age of majority is....either 18 or 21. It used to be 21, may still be, but I think it may have been dropped to 18 when 18 year-olds were allowed to register to vote. Maybe a lawyer on here can answer that. I also seem to recall that anyone who is active in the U.S. military gets an exemption from the "majority" age law for contract purposes. But I may have dreamed that up...

I know I had to guarantee my daughter's first CC account when she was a high school student. Of course, I protected myself by only allowing a low credit limit on her account. You could probably do that for your son and have the credit limit set to whatever you are comfortable with.

quote:

---

shouldn't the collection agency/cc company be communicating with the attorney handling the estate and not the agrieved parents?

---

if he doesnt have any net assets, he doesnt have an estate. Thus, he likely doesnt have an attorney.

If they guy died without a will, the parents are responsible for the debt unless they renounce the succession.

:cookie:

quote:

---

In Louisiana, and probably all other states, thats simply not true.

---

Huh??? I think I am missing your point.

I haven't dealt with insovent successions in awhile but my understanding is that a person is only liable for the debts of an estate only to the extent of the property they receive from the estate.

For example, if the child died without assets but with liabilities (i.e. credit card debt) and the parents hadn't guaranteed the debt, they could tell the CC company to take a hike.

However, if the estate had some assets, a car for example, and the parents took possession of the car they would only be liable for the debts of the estate up to the value of the vehicle.

(not legal advice, need to read the statues again)

Legal or not, it is very common for collection agencys to go after the relatives of the deceased for unpaid debts, even after an estate has been settled and there are no assets to pay the debts. They have nothing to lose, and sometimes hit someone that does not know any better and pays. A common tactic is to tell the relatives "don't you want to clear your mother, brother, aunt ect's name".

quote:

---

A common tactic is to tell the relatives "don't you want to clear your mother, brother, aunt ect's name".

---