Father passed away and we learned he owed money

[gabisdaddi]

Hi!

My father in law owes money to a number of casinos in Atlantic City � he lived in NY. All the debt was accrued between 2003 and probably 2009. He refused to pay them back, I don't know why. Even more extreme is that, to prevent them from taking money from him, he took his name off of pretty much everything. Banks, most of their credit cards, even the cell phone bill was all put into his wife's name or had his name simply removed. He was 'off the grid' financially. His only income was social security, which the lawyers could not touch.

He passed away a few weeks ago, at the age of seventy. He had no investment accounts and no vehicles in his name so he never felt he need a will.

A few months ago, while he was in the hospital before he passed, he received a letter from the lawyers of one of the casino's. The letter states that the casino obtained a judgment which is valid twenty years and will accrue interest at nine percent.

Yesterday he received a letter from the only credit card in his name, which has a zero balance. The gist of that letter is that they were subpoenaed to give all his information to the lawyers trying to get money on behalf of a casino. That letter said he had until June 14th to respond.

Obviously we haven't yet told the lawyers trying to collect that he passed away. Mostly that is because of our biggest concern, which is that the lawyers will find a way to burden my mother in law with his debt.

So.

Does my mother in law have any worries? Can they force her to sell "his" possessions to pay the debts? Do the casino's lawyers have any grounds against the widow, or are they simply out of luck, case closed, since he passed away?

Thanks for any advice or information!

 

[justalayman]

His debt is not her debt but...



if the creditors can prove there was fraudulent intent in removing association with himself, they may be able to get whatever action unwound so they can seize the assets.

Can they force her to sell "his" possessions to pay the debts?

"His" actual possessions, sure. Those they can prove he took action to intentionally hide assets, then those would be considered his as well.

 

[LdiJ]

His debt is not her debt but...



if the creditors can prove there was fraudulent intent in removing association with himself, they may be able to get whatever action unwound so they can seize the assets.



"His" actual possessions, sure. Those they can prove he took action to intentionally hide assets, then those would be considered his as well.

Do casinos even allow someone enough unsecured credit to make it worth their while to try to unravel their financial lives to that extent?

OP, do you have any idea how long ago your father took his name off of everything? Are there any major assets that were once in his name?

 

[gabisdaddi]

Thank you both for your quick, and informative replys.

Do casinos even allow someone enough unsecured credit to make it worth their while to try to unravel their financial lives to that extent?

I know that one casino is owed almost seven thousand, and that's the smaller number of the ones we know about.

"His" actual possessions, sure. Those they can prove he took action to intentionally hide assets, then those would be considered his as well.

How does a lawyer prove that a possession was owned by a husband, as opposed to the wife, or the two of them combined?

if the creditors can prove there was fraudulent intent in removing association with himself, they may be able to get whatever action unwound so they can seize the assets.

OP, do you have any idea how long ago your father took his name off of everything? Are there any major assets that were once in his name?

Here's what I'm getting from these two reply's... If the casino lawyers can prove that he took his name off of everything to specifically avoid paying the casino's back, then the widow WILL be responsible to pay off his debt.

LdiJ, to specifically answer your questions, he took his name off of everything in the last few years, after borrowing from the casino's. There are no major assets that were once in his name, there never were. He was more inclined to buy gold and hide it in the house than leave money in an investment account.

 

[ecmst12]

She won't become responsible for the debt, but the assets or accounts that he took his name off become vulnerable. Your mom needs a lawyer to properly deal with the lawsuit if it is still pending (possibly even if it is not).

 

[LdiJ]

She won't become responsible for the debt, but the assets or accounts that he took his name off become vulnerable. Your mom needs a lawyer to properly deal with the lawsuit if it is still pending (possibly even if it is not).

I agree with the first part and disagree with the second.

Mom doesn't need an attorney to deal with dad's lawsuit, she just needs to provide the creditors (or their attorneys) with a copy of dad's death certificate and a letter informing them that dad has no estate to probate (because he doesn't have an estate to probate).

Then, if the creditors attempt to sue mom, THEN she would need an attorney.

Again, mom would never be responsible for dad's debt. Since there were no major assets that his name came off of I will give you an example of something that might help you understand. Lets say that dad owned a vehicle, free and clear, that has a current value of 15k...and he owes 30k to the casinos. Lets say he transferred that vehicle to mom's name a year or so ago. If the attorneys can find that asset, sue mom, and prove that the car was transferred out of your father's name to avoid the judgment, then the casino could go after that 15k...but that's all. The other 15k would not be your mother's responsibility at all.

Now, using that same vehicle as an example...lets say that the vehicle was originally purchased in your mother's name and paid off over the last 4 years. That vehicle never belonged to dad at all, and therefore is not an asset that could be questioned.

Please realize that the attorneys may harass mom anyway, hoping that she will cough up the money. Don't let her fall into that trap. No matter how much they threaten to sue, until the actually do, there is nothing she needs to address other than advising them that he is deceased.

 

[Zigner]

Here's what I'm getting from these two reply's... If the casino lawyers can prove that he took his name off of everything to specifically avoid paying the casino's back, then the widow WILL be responsible to pay off his debt.

Not "...WILL be responsible to pay off his debt..." - but "may be required to return the fraudulently transferred assets to the estate".