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’m saying you’re wrong, full stop. You know nothing about the laws here, that much is obvious. You’re citing articles I read before I met with the lawyer. None of them contradict what I’ve been saying.
Do you care to point out anything specific from that article, because it supports my point, not yours. It specifically says that you can inherit: property debt (outstanding mortgage on a property); co-signed debt; and medical debt ie caring for your parent, which I’ve already acknowledged earlier.
Outstanding mortgage isn’t “inheriting debt” unless they’re upside down. If you inherit a $400k property with $200k remaining on the mortgage, you just inherited +$200k of assets. Your net worth went up, not down.
Where do you get the idea child support is somehow under filial responsibility laws, which apply to the care of your parents, ie medical costs?
Do you care to point out anything specific from that article
I do. The part which I screencapped and linked, which states:
You may inherit a parent’s medical debt if you live in a state with filial responsibility laws. “These laws may require children of a deceased parent to pay back medical bills if the deceased’s assets are insufficient,” says Tayne. “Filial laws exist in 30 states and vary in their protocols and processes.”
Seeing how you’re saying you’re not wrong, while also just a couple of replies earlier you said:
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.)
Where you SPECIFY medical bills. When in fact medical debt is literally said to be an exception which you can inherit from your parents BECAUSE OF FILIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAWS.
What is it that you’re not understanding, honestly, do tell? The answer is “nothing”, I know. You know you’re wrong and you know you’re pulling arguments from your arse with someone who actually has experience and literal education on the subject. That’s why you can’t actually discuss this with someone, even when were having the discussion in your language.
Not all debt is dissolved through insolvency SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE of filial responsibility laws.
You’re trying to disprove the comedian’s bit never happened. You can’t prove a negative, silly, but we can definitely show that it’s a plausible scenario, because of those filial responsibility laws YOU CLAIM HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.
You don’t have experience though, lol. You’ve never dealt with an estate in the US, have you?
Medical debt != child support debt, genius.
Also, I specifically said previous procedures. If they had medical debt from a procedure 10 years ago, that’s not part of it. The filial responsibility laws - rarely enforced - have to do with things like nursing home care or hospice, it’s not a blanket “all medical debt”.
Credible sources man, I’m waiting for them. Not Wikipedia, not another -pedia. Legal sources. You said you have read all kinds of stories.
Comedian story isn’t plausible because child support debt doesn’t fall under filial responsibility laws. The end.
And why, again, doesn’t medical debt get dissolved through insolvency… genius?
Because not all debt gets dissolved through insolvency in probate. You don’t even know the words. Because I know have experience on the subject in general, it’s rather trivial to see what the circumstances are in the US. Which are that because of FILIAL RESPONSIBLITY LAWS, not all debt gets dissolved through insolvency.
I feel like I’m kinda repeating myself here.
Comedian story isn’t plausible because child support debt doesn’t fall under filial responsibility laws. The end.
Source: your sweaty (and probably overweight) ass.
So now you’re on the “nuh-uh, my ‘nuh-uh’ is way more credible of a source than Wikipedia and Investopedia” rhetoric? Ugh. Remember how I called your rhetoric childish before? Yeah I take that back. In comparison, the earlier wasn’t this childish.
It’s not a comprehensive list of all the filial laws nor does it state that child-support debt isn’t covered.
A bit touchy about your size, are you? It’s not your height or weight which decree how fat you are. It’s your fat percentage. But even if I was wrong in assuming you’re part of the majority population of the US, which is slightly obese, that won’t change the facts of the matter.
You are bizarrely aggressive at defending a random comedian discussing laws that do not pertain to you whatsoever.
Just using Lemmy, my man, I feel absolutely no aggression whatsoever, but you saying that you perceive some let’s me know that I’ve got to you. Cheers. ;)
Not all debt is dissolved through insolvency and that’s because of the filial responsibility laws which you said had “NOTHING to do” with this. But you’re not incapable of admitting when you’re wrong? :D
If you can find any kind of source that says child support falls under medical debt, which is the only reason filial responsibility exists, then I’ll admit that I’m wrong. I searched and I don’t see anything in any state laws that would indicate that you’re correct.
It’s just weird that you’re resorting to personal attacks, after implying I’d be the one starting that. Usually people resort to the personal attacks when they have nothing else to fall back on. I haven’t really met many Finns before, is this just how you guys are over there?
medical debt, which is the only reason filial responsibility
ONLY REASON
You just can’t help yourself from being wrong, gawddamnit. Like genuinely you’ve proven yourself wrong several times in this thread. In hilariously simple ways, like when saying “oh if that’s how filial responsibility laws work in Finland” when the article literally begins “… are laws in the United States.”.
#Typically, these laws obligate adult children (or depending on the state, other family members) to pay for their indigent parents’/relatives’ food, clothing, shelter and medical needs.
Weird how there’s a bunch of words before “medical needs”, innit, buddy?
Like I said earlier, you really should just say “okay, I was wrong, TIL, thanks sir”, and bugger away. “Gracefully” isn’t an option anymore.
Like I said, you’d try to make this personal. Me being personal doesn’t have anything to do with it. You’re just desperate to make it personal, because you’re not qualified to talk on the subject and you know it. (In short, insults do not constitute an ad hominem. I’ll leave you to figure out the meaning behind those words. I’m assuming it’ll take a few years.)
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”?
I’m saying you’re wrong, full stop. You know nothing about the laws here, that much is obvious. You’re citing articles I read before I met with the lawyer. None of them contradict what I’ve been saying.
Do you care to point out anything specific from that article, because it supports my point, not yours. It specifically says that you can inherit: property debt (outstanding mortgage on a property); co-signed debt; and medical debt ie caring for your parent, which I’ve already acknowledged earlier.
Outstanding mortgage isn’t “inheriting debt” unless they’re upside down. If you inherit a $400k property with $200k remaining on the mortgage, you just inherited +$200k of assets. Your net worth went up, not down.
Where do you get the idea child support is somehow under filial responsibility laws, which apply to the care of your parents, ie medical costs?
I do. The part which I screencapped and linked, which states:
Seeing how you’re saying you’re not wrong, while also just a couple of replies earlier you said:
Where you SPECIFY medical bills. When in fact medical debt is literally said to be an exception which you can inherit from your parents BECAUSE OF FILIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAWS.
What is it that you’re not understanding, honestly, do tell? The answer is “nothing”, I know. You know you’re wrong and you know you’re pulling arguments from your arse with someone who actually has experience and literal education on the subject. That’s why you can’t actually discuss this with someone, even when were having the discussion in your language.
Not all debt is dissolved through insolvency SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE of filial responsibility laws.
You’re trying to disprove the comedian’s bit never happened. You can’t prove a negative, silly, but we can definitely show that it’s a plausible scenario, because of those filial responsibility laws YOU CLAIM HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.
You don’t have experience though, lol. You’ve never dealt with an estate in the US, have you?
Medical debt != child support debt, genius.
Also, I specifically said previous procedures. If they had medical debt from a procedure 10 years ago, that’s not part of it. The filial responsibility laws - rarely enforced - have to do with things like nursing home care or hospice, it’s not a blanket “all medical debt”.
Credible sources man, I’m waiting for them. Not Wikipedia, not another -pedia. Legal sources. You said you have read all kinds of stories.
Comedian story isn’t plausible because child support debt doesn’t fall under filial responsibility laws. The end.
And why, again, doesn’t medical debt get dissolved through insolvency… genius?
Because not all debt gets dissolved through insolvency in probate. You don’t even know the words. Because I know have experience on the subject in general, it’s rather trivial to see what the circumstances are in the US. Which are that because of FILIAL RESPONSIBLITY LAWS, not all debt gets dissolved through insolvency.
I feel like I’m kinda repeating myself here.
Source: your sweaty (and probably overweight) ass.
So now you’re on the “nuh-uh, my ‘nuh-uh’ is way more credible of a source than Wikipedia and Investopedia” rhetoric? Ugh. Remember how I called your rhetoric childish before? Yeah I take that back. In comparison, the earlier wasn’t this childish.
Child support debt isn’t medical debt and wouldn’t fall under filial responsibility laws.
Source: the ones you’ve provided.
Child support isn’t medical debt. Are you even following your own logic, or does your LLM not have that sort of memory?
6’3” (1.9m) and 200lbs (90kg), not fat, but I am a bit sweaty at the moment, it’s summertime and to be expected at the end of the day.
You are bizarrely aggressive at defending a random comedian discussing laws that do not pertain to you whatsoever.
It’s not a comprehensive list of all the filial laws nor does it state that child-support debt isn’t covered.
A bit touchy about your size, are you? It’s not your height or weight which decree how fat you are. It’s your fat percentage. But even if I was wrong in assuming you’re part of the majority population of the US, which is slightly obese, that won’t change the facts of the matter.
Just using Lemmy, my man, I feel absolutely no aggression whatsoever, but you saying that you perceive some let’s me know that I’ve got to you. Cheers. ;)
Not all debt is dissolved through insolvency and that’s because of the filial responsibility laws which you said had “NOTHING to do” with this. But you’re not incapable of admitting when you’re wrong? :D
If you can find any kind of source that says child support falls under medical debt, which is the only reason filial responsibility exists, then I’ll admit that I’m wrong. I searched and I don’t see anything in any state laws that would indicate that you’re correct.
It’s just weird that you’re resorting to personal attacks, after implying I’d be the one starting that. Usually people resort to the personal attacks when they have nothing else to fall back on. I haven’t really met many Finns before, is this just how you guys are over there?
You just can’t help yourself from being wrong, gawddamnit. Like genuinely you’ve proven yourself wrong several times in this thread. In hilariously simple ways, like when saying “oh if that’s how filial responsibility laws work in Finland” when the article literally begins “… are laws in the United States.”.
Let’s have another look at that link, shall we?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_responsibility_laws
#Support required
Weird how there’s a bunch of words before “medical needs”, innit, buddy?
Like I said earlier, you really should just say “okay, I was wrong, TIL, thanks sir”, and bugger away. “Gracefully” isn’t an option anymore.
Like I said, you’d try to make this personal. Me being personal doesn’t have anything to do with it. You’re just desperate to make it personal, because you’re not qualified to talk on the subject and you know it. (In short, insults do not constitute an ad hominem. I’ll leave you to figure out the meaning behind those words. I’m assuming it’ll take a few years.)