Personal cash loan collection based on a promissory note (not notarized).

[Roger85]

Hello. My 79 year old mother has loaned $25K to her son in law (my sister's now ex-husband) almost 4 years ago. They both signed a promissory note (which was not notarized) the money will be returned within three years. Deadline passed last April, and he ignored several communication attempts. She also gave him cash, so there is no "receipt".

Does she has any chance of getting this money back in court?

Thanks

 

[Zigner]

What US state?

 

[Roger85]

Illinois

 

[Zigner]

If your mother wishes to sue, she could do so in small claims court, but the limit is $10,000. She would have to give up anything over that. Then, even if she won, she'd still have to collect - that's her job, not the court's.

The lack of notarization is irrelevant. Notarization only provides proof of the identity of the signers. The only time it might be a problem is if the guy argues that it's not his signature on the document.

 

[Just Blue]

Hello. My 79 year old mother has loaned $25K to her son in law (my sister's now ex-husband) almost 4 years ago. They both signed a promissory note (which was not notarized) the money will be returned within three years. Deadline passed last April, and he ignored several communication attempts. She also gave him cash, so there is no "receipt".

Does she has any chance of getting this money back in court?

Thanks

Were your sister and her now ex husband married at the time of the loan?

 

[Roger85]

Thanks. Another option is to hire an attorney and sue for the full amount, right?

 

[Roger85]

Yes. They were still married at the time of the loan.

 

[adjusterjack]

Thanks. Another option is to hire an attorney and sue for the full amount, right?

Right.

 

[not2cleverRed]

Thanks. Another option is to hire an attorney and sue for the full amount, right?

Correct.

Yes. They were still married at the time of the loan.

Then it was marital debt and should have been addressed as part of the divorce.

 

[Just Blue]

Yes. They were still married at the time of the loan.

Was this loan listed as a marital debt? Because it should have been.

 

[Zigner]

Thanks. Another option is to hire an attorney and sue for the full amount, right?

That's an option, but she's not going to get the attorney's fees back...
And, again, she'll still have the problem of collecting.

 

[Zigner]

Then it was marital debt and should have been addressed as part of the divorce.

Was this loan listed as a marital debt? Because it should have been.

It doesn't matter - mom isn't a party to the divorce.

 

[Roger85]

It was not part of the divorce, since we found out after the fact.

 

[Zigner]

It was not part of the divorce, since we found out after the fact.

It doesn't matter insofar as mom is concerned.

 

[not2cleverRed]

It doesn't matter - mom isn't a party to the divorce.

It matters in the sense that if it was a loan, and not a gift, it should be acknowledged and affirmed who was responsible for repaying it.

I find the "we found out after the fact" telling. Does the "we" include Roger's sister - the one that was married to the bum? Was the son-in-law borrowing money without his wife's knowledge?