And before all that, you were saying that “filial responsibility laws have NOTHING to do with debt”. Are you gonna ignore that?

Even after I pointed out you misquoted me here, you’re still doing it. You’re leaving out a key piece of the quote which is extremely relevant to your frankly ridiculous claim about being responsible for your parent’s child support debt, or other debts to the state.

Dog, you’re the one spewing personal bullshit. You just can’t make a reply without a half dozen personal digs.

Medical debt can be dissolved in probate, just potentially not the kind related to say, nursing homes, assuming you’re in one of those states, and you’re in a rare scenario when they actually enforce it. I’m not responsible for my parents medical debt; I am responsible for their care and medical debt can be a part of that, but not necessarily, as in the pacemaker example I used earlier. That pacemaker example would fall into the same category as other debtors seeing payment from the estate.

There’s no ad hominem in my comments. Quote me, and don’t paraphrase and put quotes around it. Implications are neither here nor there, either. I’m saying you’re wrong because the facts don’t support your points, not because of any personal characteristics you have. A prime example is you mistakenly equating any medical debt to what would be covered under filial responsibility.

”filial responsibility laws have NOTHING to do with debt”

It is remarkable how you selectively quote what I said. You left out “…to the state”, which is a key part of the point I was making about how a child would never be responsible for their parents child support debt.

Once again, you demonstrate your ignorance of the laws here in the United States, something which you have no experience with, nor any sort of legal expertise. You may want to work on that reading comprehension rather than spending time formatting your text just so.

Medical debt is dismissed in probate insolvency, except in rare cases.

Why are you talking about medical debt? We’ve already established that it’s an exception to this. […] Why is medical debt not dissolved in probate, despite insolvency? Because of filial laws Are you gonna ignore that?

Dude you contradict yourself in the same paragraph here, lol. Is it an exception or not? For the record, it is dissolved unless it’s debt directly related to care, and only in rare cases is that actually enforced.

Still waiting on you to cite multitude of legitimate stories that you mentioned earlier. I reckon they don’t actually exist.

Shit man, you’re failing to comprehend the things you said I wouldn’t comprehend. You don’t even know what ad hominem constitutes. Ad hominem is “your argument is wrong because of <issue> with your character”. If I said that because you’re a Finn, you’re wrong about filial responsibility, that’s an ad hominem. I haven’t done anything of the sort. Your points are incorrect because they’re incorrect, not because of an issue with your character or other personal characteristic not related to the argument.

Medical debt is dismissed in probate insolvency, except in rare cases. If my mother had a pacemaker implanted, owed $250k, died the next day in a car crash, that’s not subject to filial responsibility. Once again, you’re wrong. Classic case of someone reading a Wikipedia article and thinking they understand the laws of a foreign country.

Are you gonna ignore that?

Probably, yeah. The opinion of a Finn on US estate law matters little to me. I have a lawyer to deal with the facts.

I’d like to see a single source for anything you’re claiming that isn’t a Wikipedia or other -pedia.

You’re correct I’m not qualified to speak on inheritance law because I’m not a lawyer. Neither are you.

The reason I brought up Finland is because you’re making ridiculous claims that don’t happen here in the United States. Just like how you say the article doesn’t mention child support, that article doesn’t mention Finland. I don’t have any clue what the laws are there, much like you don’t have any clue what the laws are here.

Who said anything about ad hominem? I’m not claiming that you say my argument is wrong for some personal flaw of mine. That’s an ad hominem. You’re just insulting me because you have no argument here, no supporting evidence for the frankly ridiculous claim that child support debt falls under filial responsibility.

Once again, you resort to insults, because you have no grounds for your claims.

If you can find any kind of source that says child support falls under medical debt, which is the only reason filial responsibility exists, then I’ll admit that I’m wrong. I searched and I don’t see anything in any state laws that would indicate that you’re correct.

It’s just weird that you’re resorting to personal attacks, after implying I’d be the one starting that. Usually people resort to the personal attacks when they have nothing else to fall back on. I haven’t really met many Finns before, is this just how you guys are over there?

Child support debt isn’t medical debt and wouldn’t fall under filial responsibility laws.

Source: the ones you’ve provided.

Child support isn’t medical debt. Are you even following your own logic, or does your LLM not have that sort of memory?

6’3” (1.9m) and 200lbs (90kg), not fat, but I am a bit sweaty at the moment, it’s summertime and to be expected at the end of the day.

You are bizarrely aggressive at defending a random comedian discussing laws that do not pertain to you whatsoever.

You don’t have experience though, lol. You’ve never dealt with an estate in the US, have you?

Medical debt != child support debt, genius.

Also, I specifically said previous procedures. If they had medical debt from a procedure 10 years ago, that’s not part of it. The filial responsibility laws - rarely enforced - have to do with things like nursing home care or hospice, it’s not a blanket “all medical debt”.

Credible sources man, I’m waiting for them. Not Wikipedia, not another -pedia. Legal sources. You said you have read all kinds of stories.

Comedian story isn’t plausible because child support debt doesn’t fall under filial responsibility laws. The end.

I’m saying you’re wrong, full stop. You know nothing about the laws here, that much is obvious. You’re citing articles I read before I met with the lawyer. None of them contradict what I’ve been saying.

Do you care to point out anything specific from that article, because it supports my point, not yours. It specifically says that you can inherit: property debt (outstanding mortgage on a property); co-signed debt; and medical debt ie caring for your parent, which I’ve already acknowledged earlier.

Outstanding mortgage isn’t “inheriting debt” unless they’re upside down. If you inherit a $400k property with $200k remaining on the mortgage, you just inherited +$200k of assets. Your net worth went up, not down.

Where do you get the idea child support is somehow under filial responsibility laws, which apply to the care of your parents, ie medical costs?

Honestly dude, I don’t give a shit what someone from Finland thinks about filial responsibility laws in the United States. You’re basing your opinions on a Wikipedia article and a standup segment. You don’t seem to understand that those aren’t good sources for legal matters. Get the fuck out, lol.

Hit me with those credible sources homie, cause I don’t think you have them.

Well, I can tell you that comedian is just making up a funny story and that’s not how it works in real life. You absolutely would not be responsible for paying your own child support, that is ridiculous. The comedian is clearly talking about the United States, not Finland.

Filial responsibility laws have nothing to do with debt to the state. If that’s how Finland works, I think it’s pretty fucked up. That’s pretty weird because it’s usually the United States with backwards laws. Filial responsibility means you have to care for them - not assume their credit card debt, or debt to the state, like unpaid taxes. That comes out of their estate. You are not fiscally responsible for your parents, at least here in the states.

I don’t give a shit how credible I seem, you should talk to a lawyer regardless if you’re dealing with an estate. What I can say, is that in the United States, you do not inherit debt outside of a few niche scenarios.

Alright man, all I can say is you can talk to a lawyer when the time comes.

The Wikipedia article you just linked has nothing to do with debt in general. The debt referred to in that article refers specifically to caring for your parents, not assuming their debt for other things (medical bills for previous procedures, credit cards, loans, etc.)

What it’s saying is that you can’t put them in a nursing home, rack up a bunch of debt in their name specifically related to their care, and then not pay it when they die.

That is incorrect. If your grandmother left you the house, as in she put your name on the deed as transfer on death, it is not part of the estate and you would get it outright. It would not be affected by the debt.

If you’re saying there’s a million dollars remaining on the mortgage on the property, of course she can’t just give it to you, it’s still collateral for that mortgage. It’s not hers to give.

If it was paid off, but part of the estate and subject to the rules of inheritance, then it would be affected by other non-mortgage debt.

US Federal estate tax does not count until it’s above $13.99 million per individual. In this example, unless it is a huge property, it would not be subject to inheritance tax.

I think I cut off of $13.99 million is more than adequate and only taxes those who can afford it.

I’m in the process of directly inheriting something like 200k in various savings and retirement accounts along with a half million dollar life insurance payout, and there are zero taxes on any of that.

I’m also taking over the deed on a house with $300k mortgage remaining - of course I have to keep paying that mortgage. That’s not inheriting debt. I could turn around and sell the property immediately and get paid the difference between the remaining mortgage balance and sale price.

Yeah, no that whole clip is just a joke. That’s not at all how it works. You don’t inherit debt unless you cosigned a loan or it’s spousal debt in one of those common property states.

When someone dies, you tally it all up, debtors get paid out of the estate in a certain order of precedence, if the money runs out, the money runs out. If there’s money over, it gets divvied up according to inheritance laws of that state.

Also, importantly, debtors cannot touch things like life insurance payouts or retirement accounts that have beneficiaries named. Those are not part of the estate and they can’t touch them.

I suppose it’s possible but like the article says it’s not enforced.

Edit: I watched the clip: it’s a funny joke, but that’s it. Lots of implausible scenarios in there.

I don’t disagree. Do people not realize that you can’t inherit the assets of someone who has a negative net worth? That seems pretty common sense to me, and I knew that before I ever dealt with an estate.

You still gotta pay your bills even if you’re dead, or rather the executor has to pay your bills for you.

It’s not disingenuous in the slightest. Debt does not get passed on, full stop. You cannot inherit debt except for a few niche scenarios.

I’m not saying it like it’s nothing, I’m saying it like the law is written. I am in the thick of the estate process right now.

This is hilarious considering they fucked over the EPA provision that prevented one state’s emissions from harming another (eg Ohio smoke causing acid rain in upstate NY).

That’s literally what I just said. Debts are paid out of the estate. The estate assets will always be used to pay off remaining debts before the inheritors get anything.

That’s fine, I should be able to take that risk. Motorcycles aren’t designed to withstand an impact with anything and they’re legal.

Personally, I would rather just get fucked up by ICE rather than comply with the “papers please” state. Who knows, maybe I’ll even end up in the news.