family loan

wiseshark

RichardMiller wrote: »

Legally you are not bound to repay him for the loan taken by your father. Even if there exists some written evidence for that deal unless there is not consent from you on that, you will not be held liable for paying the same by you.
However, as a friend if he is having need of money, then you should help him by paying out your loan.

Nonsense. The so called moral thing is not necessarily the right or legal thing to do.

Whether the family friend is having financial problems, they should never use emotional blackmail to make another person feel bad.

somethingcorporate

(Politely) tell him to do one, there is no obligation on you to pay this debt.

montyrebel

LOL in his face and enjoy yourself while doing it

Brock_and_Roll

I think we almost all agree.....

There is no legal obligation whatsoever for the OP to pay this person. If this person was a very close friend of the op's father and is in dire need of money right now then the OP might want to help him out a bit - but it does sound from the original post that this is not the case and the person is more of a chancer.

19lottie82

montyrebel wrote: »

LOL in his face and enjoy yourself while doing it

This ^^^^^^^

DO NOT make a "goodwill" gesture. This could open flood gates in the future.

This man is NOT your friend, if he was he wouldn't be harassing you like this and threatening court action.

Ignore, ignore and ignore again.

Gaz83

Brock_and_Roll wrote: »

I think we almost all agree.....

There is no legal obligation whatsoever for the OP to pay this person. If this person was a very close friend of the op's father and is in dire need of money right now then the OP might want to help him out a bit - but it does sound from the original post that this is not the case and the person is more of a chancer.

If the OP makes even a token gesture then this could be seen as an acknowledgement that the debt belongs to the OP. At 10% interest the debt could be worth up to £191,000 (the OP doesn't make it clear how much was repaid to the friend before the father died).

Making a goodwill gesture is a dreadful idea and should be roundly ignored.

MEM62

London1866 wrote: »

Great news! Out of interest, how long can a debt stand for? And how long can the interest carry on adding up?

Well it certainly cannot stand past your fathers demise. This is not a family loan, it was you father's debt and, unless it was properly documented and there were sufficient assets in his estate to settle it, then it dies with him.

It is difficult to judge from a post but it sounds as if you are being subjected to emotional blackmail in the hope that the lender can recover something from you. Not nice! Pay this individual nothing. Do not even consider a goodwill gesture.

Enfieldian

RichardMiller wrote: »

Legally you are not bound to repay him for the loan taken by your father. Even if there exists some written evidence for that deal unless there is not consent from you on that, you will not be held liable for paying the same by you.
However, as a friend if he is having need of money, then you should help him by paying out your loan.

Good luck building up your post count before you get PPR'd "Richard"

bowlhead99

MEM62 wrote: »

Well it certainly cannot stand past your fathers demise. This is not a family loan, it was you father's debt and, unless it was properly documented and there were sufficient assets in his estate to settle it, then it dies with him.

That's all true;

It is difficult to judge from a post but it sounds as if you are being subjected to emotional blackmail in the hope that the lender can recover something from you. Not nice! Pay this individual nothing. Do not even consider a goodwill gesture.

I agree there are not enough facts for us to know or to judge what is moral and just.

All we know is, money was borrowed and not repaid. It was a reasonable chunk of money for the time and the interest rate was not extortionate for the time. The beneficiary of the 'free money' is the OP's family. Whether the money was spent on a sports car or an extension for a house or a year's household running costs or a heavy cigarettes and booze habit, the OP's family has got 10k+ of value out of it for nothing, even if the OP was a teenager. And the other guy is out of pocket.

So, "do not even consider a goodwill gesture" and "you're being emotionally blackmailed" is something of a harsh response in my book.

The OP is 40+ and able to make their own decisions and presumably have adult conversations about what might have been owed. OP is not a teenager being bullied. OP says the father borrowed the money, amount and interest rate - rather than saying "a friend of my late father has approached me and says my father owed him".

Presumably a debt of this scale was known about back then. And a court order has been mentioned in the past so presumably it was a real debt (at the time) and not just something completely made up by the father's friend to try to screw you out of assets. However, either because the lender was not competent enough to file something in good time, or because he recognised he probably wouldn't win without paperwork, it hasn't happened.

If the debt was known about at the time, and the father died with any net assets whatsoever after settling any other debts (whether those assets were some tables and chairs, knives and forks, old clothes, or something more valuable like a wedding ring or watch or car), then those things in the father's "estate" should have been sold to pay the debt, before being given to the rest of the family.

We don't know when the father died (when OP was 15, 20, 25, 30?) and what state his assets were in. Maybe he was destitute (thus the borrowing from friends) without two pennies to rub together - in which case there is nothing to recover and the lender has made a bad judgement in lending that much cash to him. Or maybe he did have some bits and pieces by that point having saved up to pay back, or having spent the loan on tangible assets.

Sure, it is now beyond the statute of limitations legally. And so from a selfish point of view, if you want to hide behind the law and ensure you 'get away with it' without drawing attention to the fact that you acknowledge in some small way that your family benefitted from the free money, you should not make a goodwill gesture. If the distribution of the estate wasn't challenged and its too late for him to challenge it - just keep the money, well done, the family get free cash. We are of course a money saving expert site and the name of the game is to avoid paying out any more than you absolutely have to...

But if at the time of death there were once some assets that could have been used to pay the debt, or a part of it, when it was due, it is IMHO, quite OTT to blame the lender for bringing it up from time to time - as if the lender is the bad guy. The family not repaying the debt is the bad guy, by most moral compasses. Even if they have nothing to show for it because the money was used to pay off another debt or got spent on food bills or gambling habit or whatever.

As a 13 y/o you didn't receive or directly spend the money, though your close family did. At [date of fathers's death] you or your wider family may or may not have inherited something. Certainly at some point they were better off for having had it and not repaid it with the agreed interest rate. As a 43 y/o you can't be held responsible for it. But if you feel your family has benefited in some way by receiving 10k and not paying it back, then the ethical choice is to make a goodwill gesture. There are lots of things which legally you can get away with, that if you wanted to be entirely straight, you would not try to get away with.

As everyone here has quite validly pointed out, making a goodwill gesture may open up a door that is best left closed. That is unfortunate but I still think it is the right thing to do. If you would like to make the person a gift of 10k or some other token, without prejudice, you can do that. A solicitor could easily advise the best method and any language to accompany a cheque. If it costs you a couple of hundred quid to ask solicitor's advice, knock a couple of hundred quid off the net cash you are willing to send to the friend.

Of course if he is not your friend or a friend of anyone else in your family, just your late father's friend, and the bridge is burned because of this issue between you, you are not going to suddenly reconcile your differences and become best buddies overnight. So spending 10k or more that legally you can get away without paying, doesn't necessarily improve your life as much as you would by spending it on a new car, an investment for retirement, or your own family. And it would not be very MSE to pay him off if you don't have to.

But it might give you some closure and a sense of having done 'the right thing'. To some (perhaps nobody here other than myself) that would have value - even though it doesn't help your bank statement.

Gaz83

bowlhead99 wrote: »

That's all true;

I agree there are not enough facts for us to know or to judge what is moral and just.

All we know is, money was borrowed and not repaid. It was a reasonable chunk of money for the time and the interest rate was not extortionate for the time. The beneficiary of the 'free money' is the OP's family. Whether the money was spent on a sports car or an extension for a house or a year's household running costs or a heavy cigarettes and booze habit, the OP's family has got 10k+ of value out of it for nothing, even if the OP was a teenager. And the other guy is out of pocket.

So, "do not even consider a goodwill gesture" and "you're being emotionally blackmailed" is something of a harsh response in my book.

The OP is 40+ and able to make their own decisions and presumably have adult conversations about what might have been owed. OP is not a teenager being bullied. OP says the father borrowed the money, amount and interest rate - rather than saying "a friend of my late father has approached me and says my father owed him".

Presumably a debt of this scale was known about back then. And a court order has been mentioned in the past so presumably it was a real debt (at the time) and not just something completely made up by the father's friend to try to screw you out of assets. However, either because the lender was not competent enough to file something in good time, or because he recognised he probably wouldn't win without paperwork, it hasn't happened.

If the debt was known about at the time, and the father died with any net assets whatsoever after settling any other debts (whether those assets were some tables and chairs, knives and forks, old clothes, or something more valuable like a wedding ring or watch or car), then those things in the father's "estate" should have been sold to pay the debt, before being given to the rest of the family.

We don't know when the father died (when OP was 15, 20, 25, 30?) and what state his assets were in. Maybe he was destitute (thus the borrowing from friends) without two pennies to rub together - in which case there is nothing to recover and the lender has made a bad judgement in lending that much cash to him. Or maybe he did have some bits and pieces by that point having saved up to pay back, or having spent the loan on tangible assets.

Sure, it is now beyond the statute of limitations legally. And so from a selfish point of view, if you want to hide behind the law and ensure you 'get away with it' without drawing attention to the fact that you acknowledge in some small way that your family benefitted from the free money, you should not make a goodwill gesture. If the distribution of the estate wasn't challenged and its too late for him to challenge it - just keep the money, well done, the family get free cash. We are of course a money saving expert site and the name of the game is to avoid paying out any more than you absolutely have to...

But if at the time of death there were once some assets that could have been used to pay the debt, or a part of it, when it was due, it is IMHO, quite OTT to blame the lender for bringing it up from time to time - as if the lender is the bad guy. The family not repaying the debt is the bad guy, by most moral compasses. Even if they have nothing to show for it because the money was used to pay off another debt or got spent on food bills or gambling habit or whatever.

As a 13 y/o you didn't receive or directly spend the money, though your close family did. At [date of fathers's death] you or your wider family may or may not have inherited something. Certainly at some point they were better off for having had it and not repaid it with the agreed interest rate. As a 43 y/o you can't be held responsible for it. But if you feel your family has benefited in some way by receiving 10k and not paying it back, then the ethical choice is to make a goodwill gesture. There are lots of things which legally you can get away with, that if you wanted to be entirely straight, you would not try to get away with.

As everyone here has quite validly pointed out, making a goodwill gesture may open up a door that is best left closed. That is unfortunate but I still think it is the right thing to do. If you would like to make the person a gift of 10k or some other token, without prejudice, you can do that. A solicitor could easily advise the best method and any language to accompany a cheque. If it costs you a couple of hundred quid to ask solicitor's advice, knock a couple of hundred quid off the net cash you are willing to send to the friend.

Of course if he is not your friend or a friend of anyone else in your family, just your late father's friend, and the bridge is burned because of this issue between you, you are not going to suddenly reconcile your differences and become best buddies overnight. So spending 10k or more that legally you can get away without paying, doesn't necessarily improve your life as much as you would by spending it on a new car, an investment for retirement, or your own family. And it would not be very MSE to pay him off if you don't have to.

But it might give you some closure and a sense of having done 'the right thing'. To some (perhaps nobody here other than myself) that would have value - even though it doesn't help your bank statement.

Utter, utter rubbish.