Can We Be Sued For Restitution and Who Will Win?

[freemarx]

Virginia but said situation also involves Pennsylvania (only U.S. law)?

Party A (My wife) (in Virginia) has a verbal contract/agreement with Party B (My wife's uncle)(in Pennsylvania) to borrow a sum of money ($9000).

Party A agreed to pay Party B over a period of time at a regular rate ($160/month until the loan is repaid); Party A maintained consistent payments until Party A (home/auto repair costs that outpaced regular income) encountered financial distress.

At financial distress, Party C (My wifes parents)(in Pennsylvania) were approached by Party A and Party C was asked to assume Party A's payments ($160) to Party B.

The agreement was again verbal and that Party C would complete all of Party A's payments to Party B; at which point, Party A would then repay Party C for the payments made to Party B.

After a period of time, Party C was no longer able to pay Party B but had paid Party B ($3850) and so Party C requested that Party A begin repaying Party B again; this request again being verbal agreement; although understood no formal request was yet made by Party C to Party A to begin repayment to Party C.

Now by nature of being good people who pay debts in a timely manner; once Party A (My wife) had completed paying Party B (My wife's uncle); Party A (My wife) would then begin to repay Party C (My wife's parents) what they had paid to Party B (My wife's uncle).

Ok so in the above hypothetical the question can Party C (My wife's parents) sue Party A (My wife) for immediate restitution in the sum of $3850 simply because Party C needs the money back now? (Yes, that is a screwed up situation I know)

On what grounds would Party C be able to fill suit?

And would Party C even be likely to win said suit based on the above scenario?

My short internet search of this scenario is that Party C can sue Party A; but that the suit itself would be questionable given the lack of a formal physical contract. The only concrete evidence would be bank logs which showed the processing of checks cut for the particular amount owed by Party A to Party B and the amounts paid by Party C to Party B. I believe the verbal agreements (wouldn't hold water in court because of elapsed time (about 2.5-5 years depending on the agreement) and no one remembering the exact words of each agreement) that Party A made with both Parties B and C.

Just to clarify the suit would be Party C against Party A; and I guess the suit would be filled in PA.

 

[latigo]

I think you’ve over cooked your alphabet soup. Peer into the pot again.

First you have “B” making an installment loan of $9K to niece “A”.

”A” has a verbal agreement with “B” to borrow $9000 . . . “A” has agreed to repay “B” over a period of time . . .

.
Then quizzically, because “B”, the supposed lender, encountered “financial distress”

B maintained consistent payments until B (home/auto repair costs that outpaced regular income) faced financial distress.

and discontinued the monthly installments, “A” asks her parents “C” to assume "B"’s obligation to “A”.
________________

It starts to become a little less clouded with:

After a period of time, Party C was no longer able to pay Party B but had paid Party B ($3850) and so Party C requested that Party A begin repaying Party B again; this request again being verbal agreement; although understood no formal request was yet made by Party C to Party A to begin repayment.

But then you mire it up with this:

The final step then being that once B had completed paying A; B would then begin to repay C what had been paid by them to A.

And

checks cut for the particular amount owed by A to B and the amounts paid by C to B

.
Thankfully you didn’t have to go deeper into the alphabet! Perhaps you should have spent less time on the Internet and given more attention to sorting out the respective rolls of the cast of players.

 

[freemarx]

Response to First Reply

Thank you for pointing out the errors; I read the post several times before posting but it was late so mistakes happen.

I have fixed the structure and believe it is correct now.

Although, I think the jist of the matter is fairly clear...

my wife borrowed money from her uncle and repaid him, then she had to ask her parents to pay him for her because she couldn't make payments for a period. My wife's parents agreed to finish the payments to her uncle but then had to back out with a year of payments left so my wife now financially able again then reassumed payments to her uncle. My wife plans to repay her parents once she has finished paying her uncle what she owes him.

So can my wife's parents sue her for the money that they paid to her uncle and on what grounds AND who in gods name does something like that?

Also, my internet research was pretty much can someone sue someone else for restitution when there is only a verbal agreement...short answer was yes but the suit will be questionable for the one bringing the suit because of only having verbal agreements.

 

[latigo]

Whether or not the parents could seek reimbursement from their daughter would depend on the understanding between them made at the time that they agreed to assume her debt.

If the daughter were to claim that her parents’ payments to the uncle were in the nature of a gratuity for her benefit, then (as in the case of a gift) she would have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that this was the intent.

Otherwise, there would be an implied covenant that she is responsible to reimburse.

In as much as there is ample independent evidence to establish the parties’ agreements, their character as being verbal would not present a legal impasse. Substantial performance of an oral agreeement removes any stigma of the statute of frauds.

 

[freemarx]

What If?

What if the daughters intent is to repay her parents but that she cannot afford to do so until she has finished paying her uncle. In particular, her uncle took a bank loan with interest and so that debt obviously needs to be reduced first. Her parents did not obligate interest so payments would be in so much as what they paid for her. We are not talking about outright not paying them but basically saying, "wait you're turn." And just to throw more meat on the fire; the parents need money now and so that's why they would pursue suit. Basically case of parents can't manage money, so they loaned someone money so oh parents know let's sue the person we loaned money to and guarantee getting our money back now.

Yea pretty much, they are threatening to sue my mother-in-law's estates her sisters are the executors for a tax bill my in-laws paid for my wife's grandfather before he passed because they don't have money now. Actually question on this anyone, if they gave the money as a gift and wrote it off on the their taxes as such can the sue for restitution in that case or are they then committing tax fraud?