|
if the father incurrs debts which he cannot repay, can the creditor
extract the payment owed by the father by taking the house from the
father or otherwise legally encumbering the house so that the son
would not inherit clear title to the house upon the death of the
father? What law comes into play with the son being a minority owner
of the house?
If a person has no other assets other than his house, and he incurrs
massive debts through a major illness that is not covered by medical
insurance...if his son is a partial owner of the house does that stop
a creditor from taking the house to satisfy the father's debt?
What differences come into play with different percentages of
ownership eg...50%/50%, 75%/25%,99%/1?
Bill
|
| |
| |
On 7/3/05 3:21 am, in article n1in215csh6pmmi1c8oc9v5cjmuc28fsv1@4ax.com,
"Bill" <bigc300@carolina.rr.com> wrote:
if the father incur[]s debts which he cannot repay, can the creditor
extract the payment owed by the father by taking the house from the
father or otherwise legally encumbering the house so that the son
would not inherit clear title to the house upon the death of the
father? What law comes into play with the son being a minority owner
of the house?
You say the father has a 90% share and the son a 10% share. More than
likely, each is fully liable for any mortgage debt -- at least if the
mortgagee is a bank.
The whole of the house is security for the whole of the debt.
If there is negative equity, both borrowers are liable for the deficiency,
assuming that both signed the mortgage note.
If the father has given 10% of the house by quitclaim deed, and the son is
not liable on the note, than at the father's death if there are insufficient
assets (after payment of funeral expenses and administrative expenses of the
probate) to pay anything further on the loan, then the bank gets the house
(by foreclosure) and the son owes nothing. Since he signed no note. But his
"equity" is worthless since the debt exceeded the value of the house.
If the facts are different from what I have stated, the result will be
different.
Often quitclaim deeds are not recorded, partly because you need the
mortgagee bank's permission to sell or give away a share in the house. In
that case, the son's interest in the house can not necessarily be secure
against claims by other creditors of the father.
All this depends on your state's law, but that's an approximation of the
general rules.
|
| |
| |
If a person has no other assets other than his house, and he incurrs
massive debts through a major illness that is not covered by medical
insurance...if his son is a partial owner of the house does that stop
a creditor from taking the house to satisfy the father's debt?
Usually if a senior incurs massive medical expenses not covered by insurance
or Medicare and which he cannot pay out-of-pocket, Medicaid kicks in. A
typical example is long-term nursing home care.
No idea which state you're in, and it varies by state, but Texas' Medicaid
program just recently announced it would begin following a twelve-year-old
federal mandate to try to recover money it's spent from the estates of
people who received Medicaid, the particular aim being people whose major
remaining asset was a house that may be worth a lot of money despite the
person being effectively indigent. Texas was said to be one of the last
states to begin doing this.
The Texas Medicaid representative quoted in the story I read on it said they
*would not* seek to recover money from the estates if there was a surviving
widow, minor children, an adult child with disabilities, or an adult
unmarried child who had been living in the house for at least one year. He
didn't say they were _prohibited_ from filing a claim against the estate in
thos instances, just that they would not. The new policy in Texas does not
apply to people who were already on Medicaid when the policy change was
made, just on applicants from now on.
What differences come into play with different percentages of
ownership eg...50%/50%, 75%/25%,99%/1?
Don't know. If the father, say, started gifting his son a percentage of the
house each year, or if the son "bought" an interest in the house for a
nominal sum, would Medicaid and/or probate court tend to look on that has
trying to hide assets? I know that Medicaid has a "look back" period to see
if a person applying for Medicaid claiming they have no assets has in fact
recently given away their assets to heirs, etc., in order to avoid spending
their assets down before qualifying for Medicaid, but I too am curious how a
jointly-held property would be subject to claims against the estate of one
property owner.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 22:24:06 -0500, Biwah <biwah@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 7/3/05 3:21 am, in article n1in215csh6pmmi1c8oc9v5cjmuc28fsv1@4ax.com,
"Bill" <bigc300@carolina.rr.com> wrote:
You say the father has a 90% share and the son a 10% share. More than
likely, each is fully liable for any mortgage debt -- at least if the
mortgagee is a bank.
Let's say the house is paid for...there is no mortgage on the house.
The father has been hospitalized and the medical insurance has paid
the lifetime maximum benefit. The remaining unpaid hospital bills are
four times the value of the house. The father dies. Now, is the son
going to have to pay the hospital bill for his father?
Bill
|
| |
| |
In article <gdk43111fbgta7s83vfjk42v7sn3h3nuj4@4ax.com>,
Bill <bigc300@carolina.rr.com> wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 22:24:06 -0500, Biwah <biwah@hotmail.com> wrote:
Let's say the house is paid for...there is no mortgage on the house.
The father has been hospitalized and the medical insurance has paid
the lifetime maximum benefit. The remaining unpaid hospital bills are
four times the value of the house. The father dies. Now, is the son
going to have to pay the hospital bill for his father?
What happens is that the house needs to be sold. The money
from the father's share goes to the father's estate. The
estate goes through probate, and the probate process will
settle the debts. The son's share goes straight to the son.
In some cases, the son may be liable for capital gains tax
on his share. If the son wants to keep the house, then he
needs to buy the father's share, perhaps by getting a mortgage
loan.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
|
| |
| |
Biwah <biwah@hotmail.com> wrote:
You say the father has a 90% share and the son a 10% share. More than
likely, each is fully liable for any mortgage debt -- at least if the
mortgagee is a bank.
Bill wrote:
Let's say the house is paid for...there is no mortgage on the house.
The father has been hospitalized and the medical insurance has paid
the lifetime maximum benefit. The remaining unpaid hospital bills are
four times the value of the house. The father dies. Now, is the son
going to have to pay the hospital bill for his father?
Ummm... let's make some assumptions. I'll _assume_ that the son paid
fair market value for his 10% share, or that the 10% share was a formal
gift from the father made several years before the hospitalization
occurred.
In that case, the son owns 10% outright. The medical bills have no
effect on that.
The other 90% becomes part of the father's estate. If the father has
debts, those debts are paid before the estate is distributed to the
father's heirs (e.g., the son).
So my take on this is that the hospital is entitled to be paid _up to
the father's 90% share of the house_. The son is not responsible for
anything above that, but the hospital would be entitled to a "partition"
of the property, which means the house ges sold, the son gets 10%, the
hospital gets 90%, and the rest of the debt "disappears" (also assuming
that the father has no assets other than the house).
But I'm not a lawyer. If there's a lot of money involved, I would say
OP should see a lawyer.
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
|
| |
| |
Let's say the house is paid for...there is no mortgage on the house.
The father has been hospitalized and the medical insurance has paid
the lifetime maximum benefit. The remaining unpaid hospital bills are
four times the value of the house. The father dies. Now, is the son
going to have to pay the hospital bill for his father?
No the son is not obligated to pay the medical bills unless he said that
he would but the father's estate is obligated. So it's unlikely that the son
would inherit much. He would get 10% from the sale of the house.
Dave M.
|
| |
| |
|
