Posted on 02/24/2015 12:35:36 PM PST by Graybeard58
An elderly Pennsylvania husband and wife are being asked to pay their deceased adult son's medical bills under a law making family members responsible for a loved one's unpaid bills. The case is a reminder that such “filial responsibility” laws may go both ways – requiring parents to pay the debts of adult children as well as the children to pay for their parents'.
Peg and Bob Mohn's son died at age 47, leaving unpaid medical bills. Now according to an article in The Morning Call, debt collectors are trying to dun the Mohns using an archaic state law that wasn’t enforced until recently. Pennsylvania is one of 28 states that currently have filial responsibility laws. These laws usually make adult children responsible for their parents’ care if their parents can't afford to take care of themselves, but some of the laws also make parents responsible for their childrens' care.
Filial responsibility laws, which originated before the advent of the modern public support system, have been rarely enforced, but lately states and health care providers have started taking a second look at them to recover medical expenses, including Medicaid payments. In May 2012, a Pennsylvania court found an adult son liable for his mother's $93,000 nursing home bill under the state's filial responsibility law.
According to Pennsylvania ElderLawAnswers member attorney Stanley Vasiliadis who is quoted in the Morning Call article, these laws provide additional incentive for people to plan their estates. Without proper planning, children could be on the hook for their parents' nursing home bills, and vice versa.
States with filial responsibility laws include: Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. Two states, Idaho and New Hampshire, recently repealed their filial responsibility laws, but elder law attorneys in Pennsylvania haven’t made much headway in convincing their legislators to repeal.
These laws differ from state to state. If you live in a state that still has such a law on the books, check with your attorney to find out how you can protect yourself from a child or parent’s debts.
Plus it contains info that I was completely unaware of.
I wonder if filial responsibility laws can be used as a precedent for unborn person laws. Specifically, if you can force an immediate relative to provide for the needs or debts of others, then why shouldn’t a mother and father be required to provide care and feeding to an unborn child?
Good question.
All these people have to do is demand the debt collectors produce the original debt agreements.
Because they can’t.
Debt collectors BUY debts. The moment they do so, the debt is settled. The original debtor literally agreed to settle the debt through a third party payment. At that point, that’s it - it’s over. The original debtor owes nothing to the third party debt collector.
But debt collectors know people don’t know this. Nevertheless, if people demand to see the original debt instrument, note or agreement, the debt collector can’t produce it because it was settled the moment they bought it. Contractual agreements with original lenders to allow debt collectors to buy debts don’t matter for this very reason - once the debt collector buys the debt, there’s no more debt, so there’s nothing to collect.
Debt collectors simply gamble that people don’t know this and will pay without calling them on their institutionalized fraud.
Note - this deosn’t apply when the lender hires a debt collector, but keeps the original debt for themselves and doesn’t sell it. Then the debt is still intact.
That does not seem fair. If they are responsible for their medical bills they should be able to deduct all family members on their taxes as dependents.
Wow. Good thinking!
There will be FReepers along short to explain to you how big a ‘deadbeat’ you are! ;-)
When my heavily indebted brother passed away unexpectedly, there was no legal obligation, but the hyper aggressive collection calls I got went on for over a year. 6 yrs later I don’t get calls but still stuff in the mail.
No doubt. But I'm simply describing how the law works - the very same law that lenders and collectors and banks and governments use every little tiny itsy-bitsy speck of a piece to go after everyone else.
So of course, morality demands the general public never do the same right back to these entities, right? : )
Do these laws apply only to medical bills and nursing homes, or any “debt”? Because I can see some really ugly potential scenarios.
There are a solid group of FReepers who fervently believe that there is one set of laws for the little people and one set of laws for moneyed people.
These laws are draconian, and frightening. To make one adult arbitrarily responsible for the actions or fortunes of another is something that only happens in Evil empires. This just proves that Evil people existed in America even long ago. The only thing they cared about was how to get their money. They did not care if they had to steel it back or if they destroyed the life of an innocent party.
They’re immoral, predatory and abusive.
No one should be forced to assume someone’s else debts, unless they’re married, the parent of a minor child and the guardian of a ward.
Simple and straight.
Let me guess which set they belong to... ummm...
Did the people being dunned come into substantial funds or property from the death of the debtors, via inheritance or insurance?
I guess I'm one of them as I can't find any evidence to the contrary.
Sounds like Obamunism.
I know the person in question, went to school with them. No money. Older brother passed on before him. Working class. He died at his parents home.
That should be, there IS a solid group of...
Although technically the law is supposed to apply equally to everyone, regardless of their financial or social status, it does work out that moneyed people are able to mitigate their exposure to laws by the use of lawyers and accountants, and their friendships or acquaintances. This does not mean that any "solid group" of FReepers supports this. They know it to be true, but do not necessarily support it. Maybe some do, but that is not a "solid group" and the fact that they have their own opinions doesn't make them bad.
You don't need to scorn or deride other FReepers to make a point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.