I don’t see how that explains the story in the clip?
I don’t think the article covers all the state-level filial responsibility laws. There’s a ton of state level legislation after all.
Or it might be that the debt the guy is talking about in the clip isn’t legally enforceable, but it sounds like debt to the state, which is why he seemed to inherit it in the first place, it wasn’t just like a regular credit line.
Yeah, no that whole clip is just a joke. That’s not at all how it works. You don’t inherit debt unless you cosigned a loan or it’s spousal debt in one of those common property states.
When someone dies, you tally it all up, debtors get paid out of the estate in a certain order of precedence, if the money runs out, the money runs out. If there’s money over, it gets divvied up according to inheritance laws of that state.
Also, importantly, debtors cannot touch things like life insurance payouts or retirement accounts that have beneficiaries named. Those are not part of the estate and they can’t touch them.
Forgive me for not taking the word of a random Lemming.
When someone dies, you tally it all up, people get paid out of the estate in a certain order of precedence, if the money runs out, the money runs out. If there’s money over, it gets divvied up according to inheritance laws of that state.
Yes, that’s basically how the process works. I’ve read inheritance law. (As in actually an official, graded course, albeit I’m no lawyer obviously. Just elective.) I’ve just not read ALL the inheritance law, EVERYWHERE. Have you?
#Filial responsibility laws (filial support laws, filial piety laws) are laws in the United States that impose a duty, usually upon adult children, for the support of their impoverished parents or other relatives.
Alright man, all I can say is you can talk to a lawyer when the time comes.
The Wikipedia article you just linked has nothing to do with debt in general. The debt referred to in that article refers specifically to caring for your parents, not assuming their debt for other things (medical bills for previous procedures, credit cards, loans, etc.)
What it’s saying is that you can’t put them in a nursing home, rack up a bunch of debt in their name specifically related to their care, and then not pay it when they die.
Literally just buried my grandma this year and dad a few years ago.
Here… In FINLAND. Where the laws of the United States of America do NOT apply.
Yes, it refers to taking care of your parents. Ie for instance being responsible for them, fiscally. For instance, having responsibility over the debt they’ve accumulated to the state.
When someone dies they and theyre declares insolvent, you imagine it just applies to all fiscal responsibility of that person.
It doesn’t. The filial responsibility laws exempt that debt to the state from being able to be dissolved through insolvency.
And tbh, that guy with his own face and own name, despite being it being a bit from standup, is more credible than you are.
But despite that being generally the case, because the standup brought up the absurdity of the scenario, it wasn’t enforced and the debt was dissolved.
Well, I can tell you that comedian is just making up a funny story and that’s not how it works in real life. You absolutely would not be responsible for paying your own child support, that is ridiculous. The comedian is clearly talking about the United States, not Finland.
Filial responsibility laws have nothing to do with debt to the state. If that’s how Finland works, I think it’s pretty fucked up. That’s pretty weird because it’s usually the United States with backwards laws. Filial responsibility means you have to care for them - not assume their credit card debt, or debt to the state, like unpaid taxes. That comes out of their estate. You are not fiscally responsible for your parents, at least here in the states.
I don’t give a shit how credible I seem, you should talk to a lawyer regardless if you’re dealing with an estate. What I can say, is that in the United States, you do not inherit debt outside of a few niche scenarios.
Honestly dude, I don’t give a shit what someone from Finland thinks about filial responsibility laws in the United States. You’re basing your opinions on a Wikipedia article and a standup segment. You don’t seem to understand that those aren’t good sources for legal matters. Get the fuck out, lol.
Hit me with those credible sources homie, cause I don’t think you have them.
Facts are facts. Or are you saying that you’re allowed to just say “nuh-uh, facts don’t matter, I’m American and thus I’m right about everything remotely American”?
Because… that’s quite childish.
“Filial responsibility laws have nothing to do with debt!”
How about you actually try reading my replies to you, with thought? Do you think you’re capable of that? Eh, I’ll simplify, just to be safe.
USUALLY, when a person dies and they don’t have enough funds to pay off everything, the debts are dissolved. That’s how it works in the civilised world.
In the US, the bastion of capitalism, however, some debts aren’t dissolved despite insolvency because these American filial responsibility laws make it so certain debt, like medical debt or not having paid child support, isn’t dissolved.
Like I said I assume you already know how little you know about this subject and instead of gracefully bowing out you’re going all in. Then you’ll get personal while absolutely not being able to address the actual subject, which you’re clearly wrong about. Then you’ll devolve into one word replies like “k” or something and then in a few weeks when the thread is hundreds of replies deep, you’ll just give up and make a new account because of your post history.
So perhaps let’s just skip all that and you just say “ye, right, my bad. TIL, thanks”?
I don’t see how that explains the story in the clip?
I don’t think the article covers all the state-level filial responsibility laws. There’s a ton of state level legislation after all.
Or it might be that the debt the guy is talking about in the clip isn’t legally enforceable, but it sounds like debt to the state, which is why he seemed to inherit it in the first place, it wasn’t just like a regular credit line.
Yeah, no that whole clip is just a joke. That’s not at all how it works. You don’t inherit debt unless you cosigned a loan or it’s spousal debt in one of those common property states.
When someone dies, you tally it all up, debtors get paid out of the estate in a certain order of precedence, if the money runs out, the money runs out. If there’s money over, it gets divvied up according to inheritance laws of that state.
Also, importantly, debtors cannot touch things like life insurance payouts or retirement accounts that have beneficiaries named. Those are not part of the estate and they can’t touch them.
Forgive me for not taking the word of a random Lemming.
Yes, that’s basically how the process works. I’ve read inheritance law. (As in actually an official, graded course, albeit I’m no lawyer obviously. Just elective.) I’ve just not read ALL the inheritance law, EVERYWHERE. Have you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_responsibility_laws
#Filial responsibility laws (filial support laws, filial piety laws) are laws in the United States that impose a duty, usually upon adult children, for the support of their impoverished parents or other relatives.
Alright man, all I can say is you can talk to a lawyer when the time comes.
The Wikipedia article you just linked has nothing to do with debt in general. The debt referred to in that article refers specifically to caring for your parents, not assuming their debt for other things (medical bills for previous procedures, credit cards, loans, etc.)
What it’s saying is that you can’t put them in a nursing home, rack up a bunch of debt in their name specifically related to their care, and then not pay it when they die.
Literally just buried my grandma this year and dad a few years ago.
Here… In FINLAND. Where the laws of the United States of America do NOT apply.
Yes, it refers to taking care of your parents. Ie for instance being responsible for them, fiscally. For instance, having responsibility over the debt they’ve accumulated to the state.
When someone dies they and theyre declares insolvent, you imagine it just applies to all fiscal responsibility of that person.
It doesn’t. The filial responsibility laws exempt that debt to the state from being able to be dissolved through insolvency.
And tbh, that guy with his own face and own name, despite being it being a bit from standup, is more credible than you are.
But despite that being generally the case, because the standup brought up the absurdity of the scenario, it wasn’t enforced and the debt was dissolved.
Well, I can tell you that comedian is just making up a funny story and that’s not how it works in real life. You absolutely would not be responsible for paying your own child support, that is ridiculous. The comedian is clearly talking about the United States, not Finland.
Filial responsibility laws have nothing to do with debt to the state. If that’s how Finland works, I think it’s pretty fucked up. That’s pretty weird because it’s usually the United States with backwards laws. Filial responsibility means you have to care for them - not assume their credit card debt, or debt to the state, like unpaid taxes. That comes out of their estate. You are not fiscally responsible for your parents, at least here in the states.
I don’t give a shit how credible I seem, you should talk to a lawyer regardless if you’re dealing with an estate. What I can say, is that in the United States, you do not inherit debt outside of a few niche scenarios.
And you’re still not as credible.
I’ve read similar insane things like that from the States, from credible sources.
You know for a fact it didn’t happen?
Finland doesn’t have filial responsibility laws.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_responsibility_laws
You don’t seem to understand what I’ve explained to you about insolvency and debt. Guess you’re just one of those “I can’t be wrong” people.
Honestly dude, I don’t give a shit what someone from Finland thinks about filial responsibility laws in the United States. You’re basing your opinions on a Wikipedia article and a standup segment. You don’t seem to understand that those aren’t good sources for legal matters. Get the fuck out, lol.
Hit me with those credible sources homie, cause I don’t think you have them.
Why would it matter where I’m from?
Facts are facts. Or are you saying that you’re allowed to just say “nuh-uh, facts don’t matter, I’m American and thus I’m right about everything remotely American”?
Because… that’s quite childish.
How about you actually try reading my replies to you, with thought? Do you think you’re capable of that? Eh, I’ll simplify, just to be safe.
USUALLY, when a person dies and they don’t have enough funds to pay off everything, the debts are dissolved. That’s how it works in the civilised world.
In the US, the bastion of capitalism, however, some debts aren’t dissolved despite insolvency because these American filial responsibility laws make it so certain debt, like medical debt or not having paid child support, isn’t dissolved.
https://www.investopedia.com/can-you-inherit-debt-from-your-parents-11723748
Like I said I assume you already know how little you know about this subject and instead of gracefully bowing out you’re going all in. Then you’ll get personal while absolutely not being able to address the actual subject, which you’re clearly wrong about. Then you’ll devolve into one word replies like “k” or something and then in a few weeks when the thread is hundreds of replies deep, you’ll just give up and make a new account because of your post history.
So perhaps let’s just skip all that and you just say “ye, right, my bad. TIL, thanks”?