[rsynnott]

From the linked piece:

> Well, not all of it. I didn’t inherit the assets. She didn’t leave a will, which meant the state of Tennessee inherited her house. What I inherited was her debt.

Wait, is this right?! In Ireland, and I thought most common-law places, if someone dies intestate, an administrator is appointed, in practice generally the next of kin. Any assets go in the estate, the administrator pays any debts out of the estate. At the end, anything remaining goes to, generally, the person’s children (there are more rules for if there are no living kids or parents). If debt exceeds assets, then some debts are paid, the estate is closed, and that is the end of that; the creditors generally have no further recourse, and certainly no recourse against the debtor’s kids. Is this not how it works everywhere, more or less?

[NovemberWhiskey]

When you die, your debts don't die with you - they are still part of your estate.

The major function of the executor of an estate is to settle the debts of said estate. If the estate runs out of money (even after selling property, for example) before paying all the debtors, according to order of seniority, then everyone else in line is out of luck.

However there are quite a few states with "filial responsibility" laws (Tennessee is one of them) that oblige children to take care of their parents in usually vague and under-specified ways ... those have been used to chase children for unpaid nursing home debts etc.

[rsynnott]

> However there are quite a few states with "filial responsibility" laws (Tennessee is one of them) that oblige children to take care of their parents in usually vague and under-specified ways

Huh. Interesting; was totally unaware that was a thing.

Some places seem to go further:

> Singapore, Taiwan, India, and Mainland China criminalize refusal of financial or emotional support for one's elderly parents

Emotional support! Idea for Chinese sitcom; awful couple make life difficult for their adult children, on the basis that the children are legally required to be nice to them.

“You have to pay your parent’s posthumous debts” still seems like a hell of a leap from “you have to take care of your parents”, tho. I’m very surprised more states haven’t repealed these (looks like about half of US states have one, though it’s not clear how active they are).

[MerelyMortal]

That's how it pretty much works in the whole United States. This isn't the first article I've seen where the author passes on the notion that debts are inherited. You would think an author would have a duty to their audience that they should inform them about the truth and help prevent them from falling into this trap, but instead we get stories about people working to pay off inherited debts, normalizing it.

[SV_BubbleTime]

People love stories.

[h2odragon]

Cory read (and linked) this: https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/the-waste-stream-of-c...

but missed this bit:

> A second scrub will typically remove dead debtors, because they infrequently answer their phones. (Debts are not inherited in the United States, a fact which the debt collection industry frequently demonstrates strategic ignorance of.)

[DangitBobby]

Yeah, that's how it works here in Tennessee too. Not sure what happened.

Edit: looks like the literature referenced was from almost 200 years ago.

[rsynnott]

Only thing I can think of is that the author was a guarantor on the mother’s debt. Which I suppose is possible. Even still though I don’t understand why the house would go to the state.

The book she mentions is pretty old, but the situation with her mother she mentions is current.

[mindslight]

The house going to the state could be due to Medicaid reimbursement. But I share your general frustration that when such details are glossed over it tends to propagate myths (two, in this example). If this is what happened, a will wouldn't have helped. Deeding over the house while keeping a life estate or putting it into a formal irrevocable trust, before the lookback period, could have.