Who owes money to mum

DVardysShadow

MrsTine wrote: »

Morally each owes 50% - legally unfortunately they owe nothing... unless there is a written agreement in place they both signed to say they would pay back the loan?

Never lend or borrow money to or from family or friends unless you can afford to loose the money AND the friendship...

If the facts are that a loan was given and it was to be repaid, then of course, legally they do owe. The only problem is establishing the facts to a sufficient degree of proof. But be in no doubt, legally they do owe.

MrsTinks

There is no proof that there was ever an agreement of a loan - unless it's written down and signed then there is no loan - it may as well have been a gift and that is how it will be seen "legally". Morally then yes a loan exsists and should be repaid but enforcing that without a loan agreement would be impossible.

DVardysShadow

MrsTine wrote: »

There is no proof that there was ever an agreement of a loan - unless it's written down and signed then there is no loan - it may as well have been a gift and that is how it will be seen "legally".

1] Writing is not the only means of proof
2] If a legal claim is made for repayment, and it falls on lack of proof, it may be that the winning side claims that it was a gift. The court will not declare it a gift, they will only deny a claim for it to be repaid. If the borrowing side ask for a declaration that it was a gift, they too will be put to proving this to the satisfaction of the court.
3] Cases are decided on law and facts. Legally, a loan has to be repaid, there is no debate. But if the loan cannot be proved to the satisfaction of the court, the court will not uphold a claim for repayment.

Morally then yes a loan exsists and should be repaid but enforcing that without a loan agreement would be impossible.

The agreement could be verbal, it could be proved and it could be upheld. Do not confuse 'loan agreement' with 'loan agreement document'.

Smiffy74

Susan_Frost wrote: »

Has anyone any thoughts on the following.

Husband and wife borrow £3000 from wife's mum to buy a car.

They divorce 2 years later. The money had not been paid back to wife's mum.

Divorce and financial settlement go through court, where husband takes the car as part of his share, presumeably at the value of the car 2 years on.

Wife did not raise the issue of her mum being owed the money at the time of the court hearing.

Morally, and legally, who owes mum the money.

I think this one should come down to the right thing to do... but unfortunately most people seem to suffer from an inability to do the right thing...

HalfPint

the right thing....each pays 50%...simple, black and white. Unfortunately, life isn't black and white and no doubt poor mum will be out of pocket one way or another.

Legally...I have no idea

HPx

foxy-roxy

well the wife should pay her mum back for a start and if she needs to then get the 50% of her ex.
When they were going through who gets what, why did it never come up about the car 'loan' they had from the mother not come up?

Susan_Frost

Thanks for the posts.

I am not "the wife" but am asked to make a judgement.

The money was not asked for because they dont have a lot and mum was happy for it to be just "owed". She is in her 80s.

I suspect "the wife" did not bring it up at the time of financial settlement as she would have lost £1500 of her settlement just like her husband. She thinks that he should foot the full amount because he now has the car. Though it would not have been valued at £3000 two years down the line when being assessed as part of the joint monies.

Mum would not have even thought of all this at the time.

I think Wife should have sorted it out at time of divorce to ensure mum's money was safe. Husband would have agreed at that point, he got on well with mum. But now ex husband and wife are no longer in touch.

Well, as a minimum I feel mum is owed £1500 by the wife. Which is a start.

Thanks all.