Mom lied

[cbg]

While I do not disagree that seeing a local attorney is most likely wise, I am having a hard time accepting that a judgment against the daughter is enforceable against the mother, no matter what the mother may have signed agreeing to pay her daughter's expenses. It's one thing to agree to pay her rent. It's quite another thing to be held liable for a court-ordered judgement.

 

[quincy]

While I do not disagree that seeing a local attorney is most likely wise, I am having a hard time accepting that a judgment against the daughter is enforceable against the mother, no matter what the mother may have signed agreeing to pay her daughter's expenses. It's one thing to agree to pay her rent. It's quite another thing to be held liable for a court-ordered judgement.

The judgment can be used to attach the daughter’s assets.

 

[Zigner]

The judgment can be used to attach the daughter’s assets.

Daughter, apparently, doesn't have any.

 

[quincy]

Daughter, apparently, doesn't have any.

She apparently has money in a family trust.

 

[Taxing Matters]

She apparently has money in a family trust.

The problem is whether the OP can reach those assets in the trust with a judgment against the daughter. The terms of the trust (which we don't know) and Idaho state law may make that rather difficult, if not impossible, to do. In order to collect on the alleged guarantee the mother provided (and I have some doubts about the sufficiency of that guarantee) the OP would need a judgment against the mother.

 

[quincy]

The problem is whether the OP can reach those assets in the trust with a judgment against the daughter. The terms of the trust (which we don't know) and Idaho state law may make that rather difficult, if not impossible, to do. In order to collect on the alleged guarantee the mother provided (and I have some doubts about the sufficiency of that guarantee) the OP would need a judgment against the mother.

I believe with the documents on hand, including the judgment, Molly can get to the assets held by the mother for the stated purpose of paying the daughter’s expenses.

 

[Litigator22]

While I do not disagree that seeing a local attorney is most likely wise, I am having a hard time accepting no matter what the mother may have signed agreeing to pay her daughter's expenses (?) It's one thing to agree to pay her rent. It's quite another thing to be held liable for a court-ordered judgement [sic].

(Excuse me, but what means: "I am having a hard time accepting no matter what the mother may have signed agreeing to pay her daughter's expenses"[sic]? Trouble accepting what?)
______
Next if you please, where in the discussion is anyone advocating that a judgment against the daughter is (directly) enforceable against the mother?

I thought we had moved past that ill-advised notion. And now the debate is whether or not the language contained in mom's letter constitutes an enforceable promise or guarantee on her behalf to stand responsible for the daughters' debt to the OP - whether or not reduced to a judgment against the daughter. In simple terms, does the OP have a viable cause of action against mom based upon that letter?

Z says the letter is only informative and will not support an agreement to answer for the debt of the daughter.

I disagree as noted and wouldn't hesitate a heartbeat to place the issue before a fact finder or jury. As an attorney (I assume) what do you say?

If it's one thing to agree to pay her rent, (borrowing your words) why isn't it the same thing as saying being liable for that rent?

 

[Taxing Matters]

I believe with the documents on hand, including the judgment, Molly can get to the assets held by the mother for the stated purpose of paying the daughter’s expenses.

A belief based on what? Remember, the assets are supposedly in a trust in Idaho. Thus, the daughter does not own the assets. She is only entitled to get distributions from the trust as permitted by the terms of the trust. We don't know the terms of the trust. If it is a special needs trust or some other kind of restricted trust, which is a distinct possibility, then the creditor isn't going to be able to compel any distributions from the trust. It can attach distributions that are actually made, if any, and even doing that is tricky because the creditor is not a resident of Idaho and Idaho statute prohibits assignment of trust interests to persons out of state. So at the very least, we'd need to know what the terms of the trust are as to distributions to the daughter to begin to figure out how likely it is that Molly could attach anything coming from the trust.

If that document signed by the mother is construed as a personal guarantee by the mother (which Litigator22 is apparently convinced is a rock solid guarantee, and I disagree with the that — the language may not be sufficiently clear for that IMO) to pay the daughter's expenses then Molly would need to sue the mother for a judgment on her guarantee. The judgment against the daughter would not allow Molly to attach any assets of the mother.

Thus, as I said before, I would strongly urge Molly to consult an attorney in Idaho who is familiar with Idaho trust law as well as the law on debt guaranty to review all the facts and tell her realistically how likely it is that she can either get something from teh trust or go after the mother. As far as I know, no one here is an attorney in Idaho and these are very much matters of state law. We must not forget that each state's law can be different, and this is particularly true with trust law.

 

[quincy]

I lean toward Litigator’s assessment but have stated before, and agree with you now, that a personal review of the documents by an attorney in Molly’s area would be smart.

 

[mollym.sequoia@]

The lease was a year’s length, and renewed each year?

The lease was month to month. She stayed a year and a half.

 

[mollym.sequoia@]

(Excuse me, but what means: "I am having a hard time accepting no matter what the mother may have signed agreeing to pay her daughter's expenses"[sic]? Trouble accepting what?)
______
Next if you please, where in the discussion is anyone advocating that a judgment against the daughter is (directly) enforceable against the mother?

I thought we had moved past that ill-advised notion. And now the debate is whether or not the language contained in mom's letter constitutes an enforceable promise or guarantee on her behalf to stand responsible for the daughters' debt to the OP - whether or not reduced to a judgment against the daughter. In simple terms, does the OP have a viable cause of action against mom based upon that letter?

Z says the letter is only informative and will not support an agreement to answer for the debt of the daughter.

I disagree as noted and wouldn't hesitate a heartbeat to place the issue before a fact finder or jury. As an attorney (I assume) what do you say?

If it's one thing to agree to pay her rent, (borrowing your words) why isn't it the same thing as saying being liable for that rent?

I think it would be the same thing. If she had stuck to her oral promise to pay the rent, then there wouldn't be an existing issue of whether or not she should be liable for the unpaid rent...because there would be no unpaid rent. She can't break contract then claim that there is no contract because contract is broken.

 

[mollym.sequoia@]

I lean toward Litigator’s assessment but have stated before, and agree with you now, that a personal review of the documents by an attorney in Molly’s area would be smart.

What does litigators assessment mean? A judges decision or a moderators decision (as opposed to a jury)?

 

[Zigner]

I think it would be the same thing. If she had stuck to her oral promise to pay the rent, then there wouldn't be an existing issue of whether or not she should be liable for the unpaid rent...because there would be no unpaid rent. She can't break contract then claim that there is no contract because contract is broken.

So, tell me this: What were the exact terms of that "oral promise"? Did she tell you she'd pay it forever? Or for 12 months? Or for some other time period?

What, exactly was contained in the demurrer? What was the reasoning behind it?

If the mom got a high-priced lawyer before, what makes you believe she won't get one again?

You can't use your judgment against the daughter as an enforcement tool against mom. There just is no way around that.

 

[quincy]

I think it would be the same thing. If she had stuck to her oral promise to pay the rent, then there wouldn't be an existing issue of whether or not she should be liable for the unpaid rent...because there would be no unpaid rent. She can't break contract then claim that there is no contract because contract is broken.

You certainly have enough to take to an attorney in your area for a review of the merits of a suit against the mom or an enforcement of the judgment against the daughter depending on how the trust is set up.

Thank you for answering my earlier question.

 

[Zigner]

What does litigators assessment mean? A judges decision or a moderators decision (as opposed to a jury)?

"litigator" is an advisor/member here. quincy was expressing that he tends to agree with litigator (the advisor/member).