Is it possible to inherit a gambling debt?

[Jody.Drummer]

There are many people who take loans to participate in gambling, they go into a lot of debt to get loans, so lenders come to them for loans, they have to sell their houses and land to pay off their loans. I have seen many people around me who take loans from moneylenders to gamble. They take loans and participate in gambling and at some point they lose everything as lenders come to them for loans, they have to sell their houses and land to pay off their debts. Such gamblers are the most hated people in the society, especially in the rural society these people are very hated by all the people. A small budget should always be used for gambling and never more than a small budget. Those who have spent all of their life's income on gambling are the ones who suffer the most and end up in debt.

these types of people are the worst because if it's his own home, it doesn't matter, the problem is that it's the home with his family, where he lives with his wife and children, it's very sad to see a family become homeless just because the head of their household was involved in gambling debts. it would be too selfish if he only thought about his own pleasure and didn't think about what would happen to his family in the future. and usually people like this will be hated by their wives and children.

Yes, it is true that this is indeed a very worrying situation, and this can really be a reason that the impact of gambling addiction can cause many problems, not only financially but destroying all their family relationships and also obviously with problems like this, their family will be displaced due to the behavior of a father who is too reckless and excessive in gambling and has to lose their only place of residence along with other assets they own such as land or anything else to pay off debts.

This is the danger when someone has entered the addiction phase, especially if that person's background is not good, or that means they have a personality that is quite sensitive and easily provoked, then clearly this behavior will encourage more impulsive gambling activities, because usually people who easily provoked, they will be easier to get emotional and clearly I can't imagine what decisions they will choose when they are in a stressful situation with lots of pressure, especially when they have a problem of piling up debt. Yes, I also agree with you that most of his family will hate him, but yes, the rice has become porridge and there is nothing they can do except accept the situation and circumstances. I think we can really learn from this by always implementing lots of actions. prevention when gambling.

[1715580268]

1715580268

[1715580268]

1715580268

[1715580268]

1715580268

[Baki202]

Gambling is a bad thing and because of gambling if one person takes a loan then every other individuals of a family suffer from this thing because most of the time gambler takes laon and then go away from the sight leaving behind their family who suffers alot due to such burden.

It is reality that gambler loss all the money before passing away in gambling and also he has taken laon as without burrowing money he cannot sustain gambling. After leaving the world, the family members feel sad for his father's act as everyone is not able to give such a huge amount to lender and this is a reason that gambler loss their respect in society.

I don't think that is right everyone that gambles, gamble at there own responsibility. And a gambler putting is family in danger i don't also think is right because plenty of gamblers always want to keep there gambling habit a secret. And It is really not important to take a loan to gamble. But since gambling is all about risk if the bettor should win, he could pay back the loan and make profit out of it sometimes the risk is worth taking. And eventually if the bettor should take a loan and went out if sight then I don't see the reason why the family should be held accountable for such act.

The person giving out the money on loan for the bettor should know the risk behind borrowing a gambler money because if he does not pay back. If does not win another money from gambling then it will be difficult to pay if not that he or she as a job. And if the bettor is a professional gamblers then the person have to wait until there is a win.

[robelneo]

The high rate of gamblers who take loan for gambling purposes is quite alarming, and most of them are fathers to kids. Most of them don't end up taking care of their debt before passing. What happens to the funds, when the lender comes for his money? It's quite a tough one for a person who isn't a gambler to inherit a trouble from a gambling dad. Such things also increase the anger of the society on gamblers, because the addicts are, also, good at extending their problem gambling to other close relatives. Could it be talked through in the law court?

It's an added burden to the family of the deceased, but here in our country the law protects the lender there is a law that the family of the deceased will inherit the debt, and the properties of the departed should be sold to buy all the debts of the deceased whatever the debt comes from, even on gambling.

This is why it's not recommended that a gambler take a loan because if an unexpected happens, the family will have an additional burden, and if the loan is too big the family will bear the burden for a long time depending on how huge the loan is.
It's better to sell a property than take a loan, a loan should be taken in times of emergency, or if you have a business venture and there's potential profit on that venture.

[Kelward]

People inherit depts, whether the deacesed borrower used it for gambling or for any other purposes, but it'll be most painful for a person to inherit a dept that was used to gamble, especially if there was no wealth left behind to show for the deacesed gambling. If it's proven that the lender knows that the borrower was going to use the money for gambling and went ahead to borrow him, then I believe that who inherited the dept can have a case against the lender not to repay the loan. People should be responsible about gambling, that's why it's said that we should gamble with the amount that we can afford to loose.

[slapper]

The high rate of gamblers who take loan for gambling purposes is quite alarming, and most of them are fathers to kids. Most of them don't end up taking care of their debt before passing. What happens to the funds, when the lender comes for his money? It's quite a tough one for a person who isn't a gambler to inherit a trouble from a gambling dad. Such things also increase the anger of the society on gamblers, because the addicts are, also, good at extending their problem gambling to other close relatives. Could it be talked through in the law court?

There are many people who take loans to participate in gambling, they go into a lot of debt to get loans, so lenders come to them for loans, they have to sell their houses and land to pay off their loans. I have seen many people around me who take loans from moneylenders to gamble. They take loans and participate in gambling and at some point they lose everything as lenders come to them for loans, they have to sell their houses and land to pay off their debts. Such gamblers are the most hated people in the society, especially in the rural society these people are very hated by all the people. A small budget should always be used for gambling and never more than a small budget. Those who have spent all of their life's income on gambling are the ones who suffer the most and end up in debt.

When a gambler becomes addicted to gambling, the possibility of controlling his gambling activities becomes almost impossible and at that time, he's very likely to make decisions that'll affect him deeply. I've been opportuned to see gamblers who sold off almost everything in their custody including the ones they that aren't legally their own just to fund their gambling addiction and I've also seen others who went as far as borrowing money from money lenders while using their landed properties as collateral just to also find their gambling addiction. But the good thing about the above mentioned actions some addicted gamblers take is that they'll end up suffering the consequences of their actions by themselves unlike what happens when the take loans without a collateral and probably promise the loanee that they're going to pay later and dies without paying those loans.

When a gambler takes a loan or borrows money and fails to repay before dying, the debts are in most times going to be inherited by his close relatives who will now have to go through the pain of paying for a debt they didn't know when it was incurred but that's not the most painful part of paying such debts. The most painful thing about paying for such debts is that the debts will be payed with the knowledge that the  diseased used the proceeds of the borrowed money to gamble. My opinion about this kind of scenerio is that the law should be more kind to the relatives of such person so they stop paying for a debt they didn't incure

When a gambler borrows from his moneylender, he never borrows from the moneylender by telling his moneylender about gambling, he always borrows from the moneylender by telling his moneylender about family difficulties or some other difficulty. When a moneylender is given a loan due to family difficulties or for the treatment of a sick person, the moneylender is bound to give the loan because the moneylender's duty is to stand by the family of his worker. But here I want to say that the moneylender must talk to his family and give the loan to his worker after asking what he is using. There are many people in my area who tell such lies to their close relatives and participate in gambling by taking money from moneylenders. There comes a time when they become so addicted to gambling that they are forced to commit suicide or leave the country for a distant country. So if every close relative moneylender is careful it is possible to solve such problems.

We're dealing with a genuine issue, not an excuse playground. Fraudulent borrowing? That route is ethically treacherous. Money isn't everything; trust is. If that breaks, good luck reconstructing

However, the gambler is not solely responsible. Two-way street. Moneylenders (or family and friends) must be more careful. Accountability and support are essential. Question, demand transparency. It's not prying; it's preventing disaster. Let's not demonize gambling. Hobbies are different from habits. Responsible, limited gaming is healthy. Like fire, it's a tool when controlled but a calamity when uncontrolled

[Blitzboy]

From the little experience that I have seen, many fathers have passed away and they left behind some debts that's needed to be settled, because it's even a sin to have debts on you after passing, I have heard from religious people that you getting through the heavens gate will be hard if you have debt on you.

In my country older people are now used to telling their children the amount they owe someone or some organization, just in case, because some people might decide to use lie and take money from the children, telling them that their dead father is owing them some money.

My father did the same, and we still see someone who came out and said he was owing her some money, and later I found out from my siblings that she lied, my father never mentioned her name as one of those he was owing some money, when the issue was dragged to a point, she claimed he already paid her some while ago and she just remember.

Its almost as if every family has that one "mystery creditor" who pops out of the woodwork with claims that smell fishier than a week-old sushi. A family bonding experience like no other, isnt it? Always, always verify those claims. Its like a detective game, minus the fun and with added paperwork. Your story? Its a classic. The sudden appearance of a "creditor" with a conveniently foggy memory? Priceless. Its as if they think the afterlife comes with a debt ledger.

Getting into heaven with debt? Thats one way to add a spiritual twist to financial planning. Maybe we should start betting on how many of these "creditors" would try their luck. It could be our own version of fun gambling - family edition.

[Quidat]

The high rate of gamblers who take loan for gambling purposes is quite alarming, and most of them are fathers to kids. Most of them don't end up taking care of their debt before passing. What happens to the funds, when the lender comes for his money? It's quite a tough one for a person who isn't a gambler to inherit a trouble from a gambling dad. Such things also increase the anger of the society on gamblers, because the addicts are, also, good at extending their problem gambling to other close relatives. Could it be talked through in the law court?

There are many people who take loans to participate in gambling, they go into a lot of debt to get loans, so lenders come to them for loans, they have to sell their houses and land to pay off their loans. I have seen many people around me who take loans from moneylenders to gamble. They take loans and participate in gambling and at some point they lose everything as lenders come to them for loans, they have to sell their houses and land to pay off their debts. Such gamblers are the most hated people in the society, especially in the rural society these people are very hated by all the people. A small budget should always be used for gambling and never more than a small budget. Those who have spent all of their life's income on gambling are the ones who suffer the most and end up in debt.

When a gambler becomes addicted to gambling, the possibility of controlling his gambling activities becomes almost impossible and at that time, he's very likely to make decisions that'll affect him deeply. I've been opportuned to see gamblers who sold off almost everything in their custody including the ones they that aren't legally their own just to fund their gambling addiction and I've also seen others who went as far as borrowing money from money lenders while using their landed properties as collateral just to also find their gambling addiction. But the good thing about the above mentioned actions some addicted gamblers take is that they'll end up suffering the consequences of their actions by themselves unlike what happens when the take loans without a collateral and probably promise the loanee that they're going to pay later and dies without paying those loans.

When a gambler takes a loan or borrows money and fails to repay before dying, the debts are in most times going to be inherited by his close relatives who will now have to go through the pain of paying for a debt they didn't know when it was incurred but that's not the most painful part of paying such debts. The most painful thing about paying for such debts is that the debts will be payed with the knowledge that the  diseased used the proceeds of the borrowed money to gamble. My opinion about this kind of scenerio is that the law should be more kind to the relatives of such person so they stop paying for a debt they didn't incure

When a gambler borrows from his moneylender, he never borrows from the moneylender by telling his moneylender about gambling, he always borrows from the moneylender by telling his moneylender about family difficulties or some other difficulty. When a moneylender is given a loan due to family difficulties or for the treatment of a sick person, the moneylender is bound to give the loan because the moneylender's duty is to stand by the family of his worker. But here I want to say that the moneylender must talk to his family and give the loan to his worker after asking what he is using. There are many people in my area who tell such lies to their close relatives and participate in gambling by taking money from moneylenders. There comes a time when they become so addicted to gambling that they are forced to commit suicide or leave the country for a distant country. So if every close relative moneylender is careful it is possible to solve such problems.

We're dealing with a genuine issue, not an excuse playground. Fraudulent borrowing? That route is ethically treacherous. Money isn't everything; trust is. If that breaks, good luck reconstructing

However, the gambler is not solely responsible. Two-way street. Moneylenders (or family and friends) must be more careful. Accountability and support are essential. Question, demand transparency. It's not prying; it's preventing disaster. Let's not demonize gambling. Hobbies are different from habits. Responsible, limited gaming is healthy. Like fire, it's a tool when controlled but a calamity when uncontrolled

Once trust is broken then taking it back into its original couldnt be possible, once that is broken then people wont be able to trust you back just like before. So its never been that an advisable thing for you to do so. This is why it would really be always best to go into that good side of things rather than on going into that swindler like kind of mindset.  
Gambling debt? Its never been that a good idea nor really that suggested on trying out to tolerate yourself on doing such thing because if you do go into this path and keeps on piling up
on the time that you do keep on playing or engaging and keeps borrowing, then you are just likely that digging up your own grave.

When it comes to legal aspect then i dont know if debt could really be possibly be inherited but it would be understandable that those people who had been borrowed from
would surely be trying out to ask the family members that you would needing up to pay on what you have borrowed on which its common sense.

[wheelz1200]

The high rate of gamblers who take loan for gambling purposes is quite alarming, and most of them are fathers to kids. Most of them don't end up taking care of their debt before passing. What happens to the funds, when the lender comes for his money? It's quite a tough one for a person who isn't a gambler to inherit a trouble from a gambling dad. Such things also increase the anger of the society on gamblers, because the addicts are, also, good at extending their problem gambling to other close relatives. Could it be talked through in the law court?

I don't think a gambling debt can be passed down.  I could be wrong but that would seriously suck.  What happens in the case where you don't even speak with your parents how would that debt come down to you now.  Same goes with all regular debt that doesn't have collateral tied to it.

[Zoomic]

People inherit depts, whether the deacesed borrower used it for gambling or for any other purposes, but it'll be most painful for a person to inherit a dept that was used to gamble, especially if there was no wealth left behind to show for the deacesed gambling. If it's proven that the lender knows that the borrower was going to use the money for gambling and went ahead to borrow him, then I believe that who inherited the dept can have a case against the lender not to repay the loan. People should be responsible about gambling, that's why it's said that we should gamble with the amount that we can afford to loose.

These are one of the reasons lenders should always tie their loans to a collateral so they will have what to fall back to in the case of a default in payment. Before you grant an unsecured loan to anybody,  you might have made some verifications and are now certain about the person's credit worthiness.  Granting an unsecured loan to a gambler is very risky, even riskier than gambling itself. Not many will be willing be willing to inherit gambling debts they can't really account for because most gamblers who take loans to gamble are very irresponsible. Lenders need to scrutinize their borrowers very well so as not to grant loans (especially unsecured loans) to irresponsible people.

[marcous]

The high rate of gamblers who take loan for gambling purposes is quite alarming, and most of them are fathers to kids. Most of them don't end up taking care of their debt before passing. What happens to the funds, when the lender comes for his money? It's quite a tough one for a person who isn't a gambler to inherit a trouble from a gambling dad. Such things also increase the anger of the society on gamblers, because the addicts are, also, good at extending their problem gambling to other close relatives. Could it be talked through in the law court?

I don't think a gambling debt can be passed down.  I could be wrong but that would seriously suck.  What happens in the case where you don't even speak with your parents how would that debt come down to you now.  Same goes with all regular debt that doesn't have collateral tied to it.

That's right, in essence children are not collateral when taking out a loan. Gamblers usually owe money to close friends or the bank to take out loans. However, as far as I know, if someone dies, the bank loan does not have to be repaid. Meanwhile, debts with individuals or debts with relatives are very conditional, where to collect them from their children or their families, they must also include evidence such as notes or proof of loan transactions. Of course it was very annoying, because when his father died he hoped he would be fine, not inheriting debt, especially debt that was used for gambling, that would really break his heart.

[Saint-loup]

It depends of the law and the regulations of the country where it's happening but usually debts can be inherited and the children can only reject the whole legacy if they don't want to have to pay them. That could be seen as unfair for many people but I think it's a protection for lenders and a better guarantee for borrowers who have children. Lenders are rarely responsible of the death of their debtors so it would be also unfair for them to lose their money because of that actually.

[PytagoraZ]

The high rate of gamblers who take loan for gambling purposes is quite alarming, and most of them are fathers to kids. Most of them don't end up taking care of their debt before passing. What happens to the funds, when the lender comes for his money? It's quite a tough one for a person who isn't a gambler to inherit a trouble from a gambling dad. Such things also increase the anger of the society on gamblers, because the addicts are, also, good at extending their problem gambling to other close relatives. Could it be talked through in the law court?

I don't think a gambling debt can be passed down.  I could be wrong but that would seriously suck.  What happens in the case where you don't even speak with your parents how would that debt come down to you now.  Same goes with all regular debt that doesn't have collateral tied to it.

That's right, in essence children are not collateral when taking out a loan. Gamblers usually owe money to close friends or the bank to take out loans. However, as far as I know, if someone dies, the bank loan does not have to be repaid. Meanwhile, debts with individuals or debts with relatives are very conditional, where to collect them from their children or their families, they must also include evidence such as notes or proof of loan transactions. Of course it was very annoying, because when his father died he hoped he would be fine, not inheriting debt, especially debt that was used for gambling, that would really break his heart.

If the debt is to a bank, usually the collateral is given to the bank and if someone dies, the collateral will be auctioned to pay off the debt. However, if the loan is without collateral, the bank can charge the family and if it turns out they have assets, the assets are sold to pay off the bank.

But if he dies and does not have any assets left, then the debt cannot be inherited.

The most difficult thing is if the debt is owed to an individual because usually there is no demand agreement so it will be difficult to know how much the debt is if there is no clear agreement. It must be annoying if someone dies but leaves behind debts, that person is really troublesome even after he dies

[Juse14]

People inherit depts, whether the deacesed borrower used it for gambling or for any other purposes, but it'll be most painful for a person to inherit a dept that was used to gamble, especially if there was no wealth left behind to show for the deacesed gambling. If it's proven that the lender knows that the borrower was going to use the money for gambling and went ahead to borrow him, then I believe that who inherited the dept can have a case against the lender not to repay the loan. People should be responsible about gambling, that's why it's said that we should gamble with the amount that we can afford to loose.

This incident is very ironic, because even though he is dead, he still makes things difficult for other people. and you can't imagine how confused the family left behind is. where on the one hand, maybe they also feel sad because they were abandoned by their late father, but on the other hand, they also feel quite annoyed about the problems their father inherited.

And based on that, this is quite an important lesson, especially for those of us whose daily lives involve gambling. Being able to be responsible when gambling is a very important principle for us to have, and it is also important to always ensure that we only gamble with an amount of money that we are prepared to lose, so that the gambling activities we do do not have a negative impact. also losses, both to yourself and others.

[serjent05]

In most countries when debt is so high then the gambler's family is bound to pay the debt. In most cases they have to sell their properties in order to pay the debt, but if debt isn't too much then the lender allows them to pay him on monthly basis. But, that lender can do so many wrong things with that family and whatever he tells them they'll have to obey his orders. I even heard that some of such lenders often sexually exploits wives and young daughters of those who take loan from them. It's a bitter truth but it happens in many communities. Lenders want their money back badly and for that they can go to any extent.

As far as I know, only the debtor is responsible for his debt.  If there is a guarantor then the guarantor will take responsibility depending on the signed agreement.  As what I have read, children have nothing to do with their parents debt, even the wife has no obligation to pay for his husband's debt except if the person in debt has properties under his name then this properties will be liquidated.  Just like what is stated in this article: https://trustandwill.com/learn/can-you-inherit-your-parents-debt

It may come as a relief to find out that, in general, you are not personally liable for your parents' debt. If they pass away with debt, it is repaid out of their estate. However, this means that debt repayment could diminish or eliminate assets and property you could have inherited from your parents.

It may look like that the family is paying for the debt but they are just liquidating the property of the family member in debt to pay for that person's debt.  Anyone harassing a family member of the person who has debt is against the law and the family member can file a case against that harasser.

However, if the loan is without collateral, the bank can charge the family and if it turns out they have assets, the assets are sold to pay off the bank.

In my country, if the asset is not under that person in the debt's name, the bank doesn't have the right to liquidate that asset even if it is known as a family asset.  In case there is a conjugal property, It can't be used to pay for the husband or wife debt unless the debt benefited the family. So to say by default even the conjugal property can't be used to pay the personal debt of the husband or the wife if the debt does not benefit the family.

The payment of personal debts contracted by the husband or the wife before or during the marriage shall not be charged to the conjugal properties partnership except insofar as they redounded to the benefit of the family. Neither shall the fines and indemnities imposed upon them be charged to the partnership

So the family property can't be used to pay a personal debt especially when the case is about gambling debt since it does not give benefit the family .  Here is an article[1] that further explains about conjugal property on personal debt...

But like most provisions of law, there are exceptions. If the husband incurred indebtedness but did not accrue an actual benefit to the family, his personal payment on the said debts shall not be charged to the conjugal properties.

So the answer to the title is no at least in my country,  since gambling debt is more on a personal gain and the debt incurred on that activity does not give benefit to the family.


[1] https://www.divinalaw.com/dose-of-law/extent-of-conjugal-liability-for-debts/

[SeriouslyGiveaway]

If a gambling addict dies and leaves debt to children or relatives, we need to consider how that person previously borrowed money. If it is a loan with collateral (for example, a house or car), it can affect their relatives. If it is a loan with handwritten documents stating that someone will pay the debt on their behalf, it will be an extremely big problem for the person staying, but I think the lenders will not choose this form ,because they cannot prove whether the person can repay them later or not. They usually choose to mortgage the property, it will be safer for them. There is another case of borrowing debt just through word of mouth. When the borrower passes away, relatives have no obligation to repay the debt. They can ask the government to intervene if the borrower comes to bother them. These undocumented loans often happen to close relatives or friends. Theoretically, relatives have no obligation to pay, but emotionally, they may have to bear the debt if they know that the deceased borrowed money from their people.

[carlfebz2]

If a gambling addict dies and leaves debt to children or relatives, we need to consider how that person previously borrowed money. If it is a loan with collateral (for example, a house or car), it can affect their relatives. If it is a loan with handwritten documents stating that someone will pay the debt on their behalf, it will be an extremely big problem for the person staying, but I think the lenders will not choose this form ,because they cannot prove whether the person can repay them later or not. They usually choose to mortgage the property, it will be safer for them. There is another case of borrowing debt just through word of mouth. When the borrower passes away, relatives have no obligation to repay the debt. They can ask the government to intervene if the borrower comes to bother them. These undocumented loans often happen to close relatives or friends. Theoretically, relatives have no obligation to pay, but emotionally, they may have to bear the debt if they know that the deceased borrowed money from their people.

There are loans which been given might not really be that too big for them to ask some collateral in the loan whether it would be a house or your car but if it would really be that something big
then it would really be understandable that they would really be asking in equal into those amounts on which it would really be that a common approach.
It is really just that sad if ever that there would really be something that stated on the contract which possibly that it would be included if ever the loan taker died.
If there's none then the family members wont really be needing to pay up such loan.

This is actually one of the main risks of those lendors whenever that someone do really die and cant be able to pay those loan amounts.
It would really be considered to be a total loss on that case.

[nara1892]

People inherit depts, whether the deacesed borrower used it for gambling or for any other purposes, but it'll be most painful for a person to inherit a dept that was used to gamble, especially if there was no wealth left behind to show for the deacesed gambling. If it's proven that the lender knows that the borrower was going to use the money for gambling and went ahead to borrow him, then I believe that who inherited the dept can have a case against the lender not to repay the loan. People should be responsible about gambling, that's why it's said that we should gamble with the amount that we can afford to loose.

This incident is very ironic, because even though he is dead, he still makes things difficult for other people. and you can't imagine how confused the family left behind is. where on the one hand, maybe they also feel sad because they were abandoned by their late father, but on the other hand, they also feel quite annoyed about the problems their father inherited.

And based on that, this is quite an important lesson, especially for those of us whose daily lives involve gambling. Being able to be responsible when gambling is a very important principle for us to have, and it is also important to always ensure that we only gamble with an amount of money that we are prepared to lose, so that the gambling activities we do do not have a negative impact. also losses, both to yourself and others.

I think that when someone is addicted to gambling, of course they have a lot of problems with their gambling that makes them unable to stop. including having debt due to gambling. and with those who are addicted it is already a burden for their family because there will most likely always be conflict with their family, and obviously it makes it difficult for other people, and with too much pressure that they cannot accept it so that they may end their life by committing suicide and leaving The outstanding debt is very difficult for his family who do not know anything about the gambling carried out by the main perpetrator.

I agree with you, we must be able to take this as a lesson so that it doesn't happen to those of us who also gamble. take full responsibility for everything we do ourselves so as not to harm ourselves and other people such as our own family. We should allocate money that we can afford, don't gamble beyond our financial capabilities which will torture us in the future.

[sunsilk]

There is a term 'debt condonation' or 'debt forgiveness'. But this shall come from the lender if he'd just forgive the borrower upon death.

I think there are certain laws that will make the debtor totally debt free after his death and there won't be any inheritance from that person if ever it's a battle from the court and that lender will take all of the assets that should be for the kids.

It's kind of complicated because it depends on the lender, the country and its rules and laws about such issue.

[Toro iskandar]

There is a term 'debt condonation' or 'debt forgiveness'. But this shall come from the lender if he'd just forgive the borrower upon death.

I think there are certain laws that will make the debtor totally debt free after his death and there won't be any inheritance from that person if ever it's a battle from the court and that lender will take all of the assets that should be for the kids.

It's kind of complicated because it depends on the lender, the country and its rules and laws about such issue.

In my area there is still a term for debt forgiveness for the deceased and this raises the question of whether the family left behind will just keep quiet and let it go without paying the debts of the deceased or whether someone will actually do that. there are still family members left behind who can afford it. To get around this, the point is to return to each person's point of view.
If I hear that there are people who forgive people who are in debt, it would be noble if they only gave them the money they lent, but this is probably only a small percentage of people who have a generous spirit.
Because what is happening now is that it is very difficult to make money so only 1 in 10 people are able to do it and most people will still survive to get their money back.
If we look at it from a legal perspective, I see that up to now there is no law regarding debts and receivables, but if previously the borrower and debtor had mutually agreed regarding stamp duty, perhaps if the debtor broke his promise then the borrower could sue. for his mistake. carried out by the debtor.

[Gheka]

There is a term 'debt condonation' or 'debt forgiveness'. But this shall come from the lender if he'd just forgive the borrower upon death.

I think there are certain laws that will make the debtor totally debt free after his death and there won't be any inheritance from that person if ever it's a battle from the court and that lender will take all of the assets that should be for the kids.

It's kind of complicated because it depends on the lender, the country and its rules and laws about such issue.

In my area there is still a term for debt forgiveness for the deceased and this raises the question of whether the family left behind will just keep quiet and let it go without paying the debts of the deceased or whether someone will actually do that. there are still family members left behind who can afford it. To get around this, the point is to return to each person's point of view.
If I hear that there are people who forgive people who are in debt, it would be noble if they only gave them the money they lent, but this is probably only a small percentage of people who have a generous spirit.
Because what is happening now is that it is very difficult to make money so only 1 in 10 people are able to do it and most people will still survive to get their money back.
If we look at it from a legal perspective, I see that up to now there is no law regarding debts and receivables, but if previously the borrower and debtor had mutually agreed regarding stamp duty, perhaps if the debtor broke his promise then the borrower could sue. for his mistake. carried out by the debtor.

I think forgiveness and debt forgiveness often happen at this time, it belongs to the spiritual perspective as well as human kindness, lenders sometimes have already received enough interest, so continuing to hang on to the deceased is not a good idea. In addition, loans are sometimes unclear about the source of money, increasing the pressure on a family that will also be involved in the law and when this involves a human life, it will be a huge problem, therefore, it feels like inheriting very little debt from gambling, most likely there will be measures to keep both parties stable and not incur major losses.