# Woman blindsided by 29 year old debt



## Steve (May 6, 2013)

Question for you guys.  A woman was receiving survivors payments for a dependent daughter.  That daughter, at age 14, got married and was no longer eligible for payments, but the mother didn't report it and became overpaid, to the tune of about $6500.  Because the daughter had become emancipated from her mother due to her marriage, she was also liable for the overpayments as a adult, although it's pretty clear she had no idea about them at all.

Here's the question.  The overpayment is correct.  It's lawful, and if SSA doesn't pursue the collection of debt, it is poor stewardship.  She owes the government money.  Is Social Security doing the right thing to collect? Where does responsible stewardship give way to just being mean?

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20130506/NEWS01/305010055/Woman-blindsided-by-29-year-old-Social-Security-debt



> [h=1]Woman blindsided by 29-year-old Social Security debt[/h][h=2]Social Security takes women's tax refund for payments made to mother in 1984[/h]
> It had been a difficult time recently, and the $5,414 she was expecting to be deposited Feb. 27 is equal to more than a quarter of her annual salary, Clampit said.
> But no deposit was made, and when she checked the IRS website to find out what happened, she was referred to the Social Security Administration.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 6, 2013)

I find it hard to justify going after this woman after that length of time, given that the stewards of the social security system have stolen from it and mismanaged it to such an extent that its future viability is in serious doubt.


----------



## granfire (May 6, 2013)

Interesting...I am guessing the woman inherited the mother's dept....otherwise the idea of repaying funds you did not receive is rather - scary.

So, that could mean that the mother held the dept, who knows, paid 5 bucks to appease the powers for the time in question, then died, now whammo, daughter gets hit with the fun part of her inheritance. That is - to me - the only reason there is a nearly 3 decade gap....

And maybe the woman needs to rethink her tax strategy....I know a lot of people around here do it, too, but it's a rather stupid savings program to let Uncle Sam play with your money for a year, interest free....


----------



## sfs982000 (May 6, 2013)

After 29 years, I wouldn't think the SSA would have a leg to stand on if they try to go after the woman for back payment.


----------



## Tgace (May 6, 2013)

The ole catch-22. Will you spend more money fighting it than you would paying it.

Whole lawsuit mills make their money by suing people for that "sweet spot" amount of "cheaper to just pay it."

It sucks.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## harlan (May 6, 2013)

Where the h*ll in this country can you get married at* 14*?  Pursue the woman for taking her daughter's benefits? She should be in jail for being a lousy mother.


----------



## granfire (May 6, 2013)

harlan said:


> Where the h*ll in this country can you get married at* 14*?  Pursue the woman for taking her daughter's benefits? She should be in jail for being a lousy mother.



30 years ago? With parental consent, indeed! (Loretta Lynn got married that young...a shade earlier though I believe)

http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/teen_marriage_laws/


----------



## Steve (May 6, 2013)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I find it hard to justify going after this woman after that length of time, given that the stewards of the social security system have stolen from it and mismanaged it to such an extent that its future viability is in serious doubt.


Wow.  Stolen and mismanaged...  clearly some emotion on the subject from you.  You believe that solvency concerns of SSA are because it's been mismanaged?  Are you talking about Congress or the SSA?  



granfire said:


> Interesting...I am guessing the woman inherited the mother's dept....otherwise the idea of repaying funds you did not receive is rather - scary.
> 
> So, that could mean that the mother held the dept, who knows, paid 5 bucks to appease the powers for the time in question, then died, now whammo, daughter gets hit with the fun part of her inheritance. That is - to me - the only reason there is a nearly 3 decade gap....
> 
> And maybe the woman needs to rethink her tax strategy....I know a lot of people around here do it, too, but it's a rather stupid savings program to let Uncle Sam play with your money for a year, interest free....


Survivors benefits are actually paid to the recipient of the funds.  So, the mom likely got a payment, and then each of her kids received payments, as well.  Because the kids were dependents, all of the money was paid directly to the mom.  So, essentially, my understanding is that the debt is actually the daughter's debt, but it was paid to the mom.  Because the daughter was considered an emancipated youth when she got married, she was being overpaid.  The time difference has to do with when the laws came into place.  SSA has only been legally able to recover debt from the IRS for a short time.  Up until recently, they could only go back up to 10 years to recover debt in this way.  By that time, this debt was over 10 years old.  But now that the time frame has been lifted, they are going back further.  



sfs982000 said:


> After 29 years, I wouldn't think the SSA would have a leg to stand on if they try to go after the woman for back payment.


It's a tough one, which is why I thought I'd bring it up.  I'm surprised that so many here are defaulting to the side of the debtor.  



Tgace said:


> The ole catch-22. Will you spend more money fighting it than you would paying it.
> 
> Whole lawsuit mills make their money by suing people for that "sweet spot" amount of "cheaper to just pay it."
> 
> ...


She's already requested a waiver of the overpayment, so it could be reduced or completely waived.  Also, bear in mind that she has received due process.  She received notification.



harlan said:


> Where the h*ll in this country can you get married at* 14*?  Pursue the woman for taking her daughter's benefits? She should be in jail for being a lousy mother.


LOL.  Interesting perspective, harlan!   I thought the same thing at first, too.  But, then I figure that marriage has survived 29 years.  Who am I to judge?


----------



## pgsmith (May 6, 2013)

I feel that there needs to be a statute of limitations set on it. 29 years is a long time to go back to retrieve a debt. If my great grandfather happened to avoid paying his taxes until he died, can they take my tax refund now to pay for his debt?

  There's just something inherently wrong about the entire situation in my opinion.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 6, 2013)

Steve said:


> Wow.  Stolen and mismanaged...  clearly some emotion on the subject from you.  You believe that solvency concerns of SSA are because it's been mismanaged?  Are you talking about Congress or the SSA?


No real emotion on the subject; from what I understand, congress has pilfered from it and SSA has mismanaged it.  In fairness, I'm not as informed on the details as I should be aside from that a fund that everyone is required to pay into shouldn't be running dry.


----------



## Steve (May 6, 2013)

pgsmith said:


> I feel that there needs to be a statute of limitations set on it. 29 years is a long time to go back to retrieve a debt. If my great grandfather happened to avoid paying his taxes until he died, can they take my tax refund now to pay for his debt?
> 
> There's just something inherently wrong about the entire situation in my opinion.


That's fair, but let's keep it apples to apples.  This is technically the daughter's debt, not her mom's debt.  It's crusty and old, granted.  But as far as we can tell from the article, it's a legitimate overpayment.


----------



## Steve (May 6, 2013)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> No real emotion on the subject; from what I understand, congress has pilfered from it and SSA has mismanaged it.  In fairness, I'm not as informed on the details as I should be aside from that a fund that everyone is required to pay into shouldn't be running dry.


Fair enough.  If that's your opinion, you're entitled to it.  I got the impression there was emotion involved, because it is a very strong, definitive position on a topic you admit not being as informed as you should on.


----------



## Steve (May 6, 2013)

So, let me get your guys' take on this.  The reason this article was interesting to me is that it has to do with government collecting legitimate debt, and this struck me as a very interesting case study.  For those of you who think that this is too far in the past, at what point should the government write off the debt?  The record is still active.  And just in case it was missed, the woman does have the rights that every person has.  She can request an appeal, if she believes that the overpayment is a mistake.  Or if it's not a mistake, but she believes she is not at fault in creating the overpayment AND that paying it back would represent a financial hardship, she can request a waiver.  An appeal or a waiver are both still on the table for her.  Understanding this, do you still think that the overpayment should be written off automatically?  

How about interest?  The government didn't charge any.  Do you think they should?  Or should the debt be calculated based upon today's dollar value?  Were it indexed, the overpayment of 29 years ago would be substantially larger.  

Is this draconian?  Is it responsible stewardship?  Is it just too mean or unfair?    

And just to be clear, I am hoping that this doesn't turn into a discussion about SSA in particular.  This could be any government agency, from the VA to the IRS.  Any agency that pays benefits of some kind runs the risk of creating an overpayment.  As you go back in time, and systems and workload controls were less automated, the risk just goes up.  These questions apply equally to them all.


----------



## pgsmith (May 6, 2013)

Daniel Sullivan said:
			
		

> No real emotion on the subject; from what I understand, congress has pilfered from it and SSA has mismanaged it. In fairness, I'm not as informed on the details as I should be aside from that a fund that everyone is required to pay into shouldn't be running dry.


SSA is a really easy target for politicos these days since it's been announced that outlay will exceed income by 2021. Lots of folks have jumped on that bandwagon to flog their consituents into making knee-jerk decisions of benefit to the politicians. Here's a quick rundown about what the deal is with the SSA. Most interesting to me is the fact that income inequality has a large part to do with the projected problems with Social Security. You never hear *any* of the politicinas complaining about that! 

5 Huge Myths About Social Security


----------



## pgsmith (May 6, 2013)

Steve said:


> So, let me get your guys' take on this. The reason this article was interesting to me is that it has to do with government collecting legitimate debt, and this struck me as a very interesting case study. For those of you who think that this is too far in the past, at what point should the government write off the debt? The record is still active. And just in case it was missed, the woman does have the rights that every person has. She can request an appeal, if she believes that the overpayment is a mistake. Or if it's not a mistake, but she believes she is not at fault in creating the overpayment AND that paying it back would represent a financial hardship, she can request a waiver. An appeal or a waiver are both still on the table for her. Understanding this, do you still think that the overpayment should be written off automatically?
> 
> How about interest? The government didn't charge any. Do you think they should? Or should the debt be calculated based upon today's dollar value? Were it indexed, the overpayment of 29 years ago would be substantially larger.
> 
> ...



  I don't agree with your position that this was not her mother's debt. The money was paid to her mother, she never saw a dime of it. Technically it was paid in her name, but it was not paid to her. Here's a scenario for you using your logic in this case. Say my mother had her social security checks deposited in our jointly owned account. if the government continued to deposit these checks in the account, and I spent all the money, you're saying that this would be my mother's debt, not mine.  Since my brother had her power of attorney and was responsible for her debts, the government should garnish his income tax returns to get the money back.

  Add to this the fact that they garnished her tax return. They did not send her a bill and negotiate payment like any other entity would, they simply stole her money because the government already had it in their hand. 

  I think it is terribly over-bearing, and an indicator of excessive power in our government.


----------



## Tgace (May 6, 2013)

Was there an intent to defraud on either (or both) side?


----------



## arnisador (May 6, 2013)

She was a minor? It was paid to her mother? What exactly is the legal theory here?!?


----------



## Steve (May 6, 2013)

pgsmith said:


> I don't agree with your position that this was not her mother's debt.


Okay.  Philosophically, you have an opinion.  But legally, the money was paid to the daughter.  You can disagree with the law as passed by Congress, but based upon what I saw in the article, it's the daughter's debt.  There was nothing in the article to suggest that the overpayment was inappropriate.  The article focused on whether it was fair to recoup the debt after so much time had passed.  


> The money was paid to her mother, she never saw a dime of it. Technically it was paid in her name, but it was not paid to her.


The mom kept the money, because the mom was the payee on the record, since she was the custodial parent of the child, but the money is still paid to the child.  





> Here's a scenario for you using your logic in this case. Say my mother had her social security checks deposited in our jointly owned account. if the government continued to deposit these checks in the account, and I spent all the money, you're saying that this would be my mother's debt, not mine. Since my brother had her power of attorney and was responsible for her debts, the government should garnish his income tax returns to get the money back.


I'm not sure I understand your example completely, but it sounds like what you're talking about is fraud, and is very much against the law.  This is actually a fairly common example of fraud, where a child sort of forgets to inform social security that a parent has passed, and keeps spending the money.  





> Add to this the fact that they garnished her tax return. They did not send her a bill and negotiate payment like any other entity would, they simply stole her money because the government already had it in their hand.


They sent her a notice that included information about the amount of the debt, as well as her rights to appeal or request a waiver. According to the article, she had 60 days to act before any attempt to collect occurred.  And since she's holding a bunch of letters in her hand in the picture, it's reasonable to presume that she also received the letters informing her of the overpayment and just didn't do anything with them.  





> I think it is terribly over-bearing, and an indicator of excessive power in our government.


This is what I'm interested in.  Where's the line, in your opinion?  When is it reasonable for the government to pursue a debt, and what do you think would have been the right way to handle this?


----------



## Steve (May 6, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Was there an intent to defraud on either (or both) side?


I don't get the impression that anyone intended to defraud the government.  The article mentions that a waiver is possible where a person is not at fault and payment would be a hardship.



arnisador said:


> She was a minor? It was paid to her mother? What exactly is the legal theory here?!?


I don't know the specific laws in that State, but my impression is that she was an "emancipated youth" and so no longer a minor in the eyes of the courts once she got married.  That's what caused the overpayment in the first place, because she was no longer a dependent and so no longer eligible for benefits on her deceased father's record.


----------



## Drasken (May 6, 2013)

Considering the fact that the government was just as at fault I would say that instead of blindsiding her now, it would be more ethical to allow payments to be made. At least give the woman an opportunity now that it has come to light.
I say the government is just as at fault because if she were emancipated and married... Well that is on file. And part of her taxes and many other things that government agencies pay people to keep track of. So this should have been caught long ago. Like before the debt was several thousand dollars.

Mismanagement of benefits like this isn't all too uncommon. And we wonder why the future of our government programs like Social Security is in question.
The fact is that the debt is legitimate. But it was a mistake on the government's side as they understand the laws that this woman likely didn't. So give the woman at least part of her tax refund and allow her to plan payments. Worst case scenario you just take the rest out of taxes later. Blindsiding people will end up with people like this lady actually NEEDING government assistance programs to get by.

As for this lady. Well, realize it happened. She will have to pay. Now or later, and it's time to work that into a budget. Been there myself. It sucks and it's a part of life. Sorry :/


----------



## Steve (May 6, 2013)

Drasken said:


> Considering the fact that the government was just as at fault I would say that instead of blindsiding her now, it would be more ethical to allow payments to be made. At least give the woman an opportunity now that it has come to light.
> I say the government is just as at fault because if she were emancipated and married... Well that is on file. And part of her taxes and many other things that government agencies pay people to keep track of. So this should have been caught long ago. Like before the debt was several thousand dollars.


 good points.  I don't know if technology in the 80s was at a place where that kind of coordination was possible.  But nowadays, I'd agree.  

Also, I don't know if payments are a possibility, but I'd expect that had she contacted ssa within the 60 day period before her debt was sent to the IRS, it would have been much more likely.  





> Mismanagement of benefits like this isn't all too uncommon. And we wonder why the future of our government programs like Social Security is in question.
> The fact is that the debt is legitimate. But it was a mistake on the government's side as they understand the laws that this woman likely didn't. So give the woman at least part of her tax refund and allow her to plan payments. Worst case scenario you just take the rest out of taxes later. Blindsiding people will end up with people like this lady actually NEEDING government assistance programs to get by.
> 
> As for this lady. Well, realize it happened. She will have to pay. Now or later, and it's time to work that into a budget. Been there myself. It sucks and it's a part of life. Sorry :/


you use the term blindside.  What does not blindsiding look like to you?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Drasken (May 6, 2013)

Steve said:


> good points.  I don't know if technology in the 80s was at a place where that kind of coordination was possible.  But nowadays, I'd agree.
> 
> Also, I don't know if payments are a possibility, but I'd expect that had she contacted ssa within the 60 day period before her debt was sent to the IRS, it would have been much more likely.  you use the term blindside.  What does not blindsiding look like to you?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Hey my mom had something similar happen. She had a student loan through a government agency. My father too. They had to file bankruptcy. It was supposedly cleared. Well my Dad's was, not my mom's. She wasn't notified until a few years ago when they took my mom's tax refund. She has since worked out payments and actually gets a signifigant portion of tax refund now. Even though technically it was an oversight with the bankruptcy, my Mom is paying what is owed.
However the fact is that the government agency can find your address. We all know they can. And not notifying someone before taking their money without warning is blindsiding. They could have notified her beforehand. Hell if she was behind on taxes I guarantee they could find her to conduct an audit. So they can't tell me every effort was made. That would be like putting clothes in water and leaving them there, then claiming every effort was made to wash them.... Give me a break.

I agree the woman owes the money. But if I were denied my tax refund it could tip the scales more toward my wife and I being on the street. Many people are like that. So the "every effort" excuse doesn't really fly. And is highly unethical.

It's also worth noting with my mother's situation they also threatened to garnish wages. Making it impossible to live on what she made. Their solution? Welfare and food stamps. Like that makes sense right? Let us pay your bills so you can pay us what you owe... Great job there of managing government funds right?
What made it worse is 7,000 turned into 48,000 with the interest on a bill my Mom was told she didn't owe anymore. The way things are handled I am inclined to believe that our government offices are staffed by monkeys with typewriters.


----------



## Steve (May 7, 2013)

Drasken said:


> Hey my mom had something similar happen. She had a student loan through a government agency. My father too. They had to file bankruptcy. It was supposedly cleared. Well my Dad's was, not my mom's. She wasn't notified until a few years ago when they took my mom's tax refund. She has since worked out payments and actually gets a signifigant portion of tax refund now. Even though technically it was an oversight with the bankruptcy, my Mom is paying what is owed.
> However the fact is that the government agency can find your address. We all know they can. And not notifying someone before taking their money without warning is blindsiding. They could have notified her beforehand. Hell if she was behind on taxes I guarantee they could find her to conduct an audit. So they can't tell me every effort was made. That would be like putting clothes in water and leaving them there, then claiming every effort was made to wash them.... Give me a break.
> 
> I agree the woman owes the money. But if I were denied my tax refund it could tip the scales more toward my wife and I being on the street. Many people are like that. So the "every effort" excuse doesn't really fly. And is highly unethical.
> ...



They did notify her.  Right?  I'm pretty sure the article says that she was sent notification.  If they didn't, you're right.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Drasken (May 7, 2013)

Steve said:


> They did notify her.  Right?  I'm pretty sure the article says that she was sent notification.  If they didn't, you're right.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



I went back and reread the article. Apparently she was not sent notification. They sent notification to the last known address of the woman's now deceased mother. Allegedly she knew nothing until she ended up going to the SSI office after being directed there in reguards to her questions about not receiving her tax refund.

Now, that doesn't mean she didn't receive notice and is claiming ignorance. But based on how our government efficiency is, I'm more inclined to believe this woman overall.

Which is sad isn't it? That I, and many Americans, am inclined to believe a woman I've never heard of or met over our government? I mean how bad does your track record have to get before that happens?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (May 7, 2013)

Steve said:


> Fair enough.  If that's your opinion, you're entitled to it.  I got the impression there was emotion involved, because it is a very strong, definitive position on a topic you admit not being as informed as you should on.


Not so much strong as having been formed long enough ago that I don't give it a lot of thought.  In light of new information, it is subject to change. 



pgsmith said:


> SSA is a really easy target for politicos these days since it's been announced that outlay will exceed income by 2021. Lots of folks have jumped on that bandwagon to flog their consituents into making knee-jerk decisions of benefit to the politicians. Here's a quick rundown about what the deal is with the SSA. Most interesting to me is the fact that income inequality has a large part to do with the projected problems with Social Security. You never hear *any* of the politicinas complaining about that!
> 
> 5 Huge Myths About Social Security


This was very helpful and informative.  My thanks!


----------



## Steve (May 7, 2013)

Drasken said:


> I went back and reread the article. Apparently she was not sent notification. They sent notification to the last known address of the woman's now deceased mother. Allegedly she knew nothing until she ended up going to the SSI office after being directed there in reguards to her questions about not receiving her tax refund.
> 
> Now, that doesn't mean she didn't receive notice and is claiming ignorance. But based on how our government efficiency is, I'm more inclined to believe this woman overall.
> 
> Which is sad isn't it? That I, and many Americans, am inclined to believe a woman I've never heard of or met over our government? I mean how bad does your track record have to get before that happens?


I think it's interesting how different people can have such different reactions.  My initial reaction was the opposite of yours.  I presume that she did get the notice.  The USPS has a pretty strong track record, processing somewhere around 160 billion pieces of mail every year.  Also, I looked up the treasury offset program rules and it looks like they send the notice to the last known address from the IRS, as well.  As far as I'm concerned, the odds that she didn't receive the notice are exceedingly slim.  It's possible, but unlikely.  At least, that's my opinion.

What I think is likely is that she got the letter and either didn't open it at all or didn't read it carefully.  But that's just conjecture.  

Again, your perspective is not wrong, and I appreciate the comments.  Just interesting to me that we default to completely different presumptions.  

Overall, I guess I'm surprised that everyone's defending this woman.  I would have thought that some of the more conservative people would come down on the side of collecting debt that was previously considered unrecoverable.  

So far, no one's talked about where the line is for you.  Most everyone here seems to agree that this debt should be written off.  But, why is this not okay debt to recover?  What, in your opinion, IS okay debt to recover?  When should the Fed write it off and when should they pursue collection?  Does the reason for the debt matter?


----------



## Drasken (May 7, 2013)

Steve said:


> I think it's interesting how different people can have such different reactions.  My initial reaction was the opposite of yours.  I presume that she did get the notice.  The USPS has a pretty strong track record, processing somewhere around 160 billion pieces of mail every year.  Also, I looked up the treasury offset program rules and it looks like they send the notice to the last known address from the IRS, as well.  As far as I'm concerned, the odds that she didn't receive the notice are exceedingly slim.  It's possible, but unlikely.  At least, that's my opinion.
> 
> What I think is likely is that she got the letter and either didn't open it at all or didn't read it carefully.  But that's just conjecture.
> 
> ...



Oh as I said before, this debt is legitimate. And she will have to pay it.
I also think that my inclination to believe the woman about lack of notice is based on personal experience as well. My mother's debt was also pushed into collection of tax refund without any notice.
Either way, the lady needs to realize that she will need to pay her debt. And the government agency should realize that mistakes were made and if she is willing to work with them, then they should also be willing to work with her.


----------



## pgsmith (May 7, 2013)

Drasken said:
			
		

> Oh as I said before, this debt is legitimate. And she will have to pay it.


  It may be a legitimate debt, but I still don't think it should be. The woman's *mother* defrauded the government using the woman's name. I don't see why she should be responsible for crimes commited by her mother 29 years ago, whether her name was involved or not.


----------



## granfire (May 7, 2013)

pgsmith said:


> It may be a legitimate debt, but I still don't think it should be. The woman's *mother* defrauded the government using the woman's name. I don't see why she should be responsible for crimes commited by her mother 29 years ago, whether her name was involved or not.



well, if it is the mother's dept the daughter did not know about it - correct me if I am wrong - it was part of the estate, if daughter assumed ownership of it, so is the money mother got overpays and owed.

I am thinking - aside from what Steve suggested about the agency not being able to garnish tax returns before - that that is were the three decade delay comes from....

And still, she would have to pay it.

But hey, it isn't that huge of an amount. I mean, it's nothing I would want to shell out in a lump sum (especially unexpected) but it's not astronomical! Considering compounding interests and such things Uncle Sam likes to tack on....


----------



## Steve (May 7, 2013)

pgsmith said:


> It may be a legitimate debt, but I still don't think it should be. The woman's *mother* defrauded the government using the woman's name. I don't see why she should be responsible for crimes commited by her mother 29 years ago, whether her name was involved or not.


pgsmith, I don't think anyone defrauded the government.  For it to be fraud, there would need to be intent, and I don't get the sense from the article that anyone _intended_ to get more than was due.  

One interesting wrinkle with this story is that, once the women got married at age 14, she was technically an adult.  So, any money paid on her record was her debt and not her mother's.  

But all of that aside, if the woman were older and had received the money directly 29 years ago, would you be okay with the government pursuing collection?  Strictly commenting on the age of the debt, is 29 years too far back to go?  Should someone be given a pass after a period of time?  If so, what's the cut off, in your opinion?


----------



## Drasken (May 7, 2013)

pgsmith said:


> It may be a legitimate debt, but I still don't think it should be. The woman's *mother* defrauded the government using the woman's name. I don't see why she should be responsible for crimes commited by her mother 29 years ago, whether her name was involved or not.



Time means nothing to debt. If I have 7,000 in back bills I will have them for the rest of my life until they are paid. I don't see fraud here, it was a mistake due to not knowing the law. But that doesn't mean it goes away.

Also, bureaucracy works in favor of people occasionally. We fought with hospitals and Medicare when my brother was going through cancer treatments. They kept trying to charge my brother, who was a minor. Well when he turned 18 it all went under his name. After he passed they continued to try and collect. However, since he died and had no assets to collect from after his death they had no legal action they could take. They had to eat the cost of close to 750,000 dollars of treatment bills. Despite my parents best efforts to put it on themselves to keep my brother's credit clean. But to be honest it worked in our favor.

The laws have to be followed. The fact that the debt is so old doesn't really factor in. And I am sure that they will be willing to work with her if it is clear she agrees to pay the debt and is willing to work it out. And if they aren't, well it is immoral but still legal
Life sucks sometimes. But at least the debt isn't too bad. I mean her current tax refund took care of most of it after all.


----------



## pgsmith (May 10, 2013)

Steve said:
			
		

> pgsmith, I don't think anyone defrauded the government. For it to be fraud, there would need to be intent, and I don't get the sense from the article that anyone _intended_ to get more than was due.


We don't know that. All that we have to go on is the woman saying that she didn't think her mother would do that on purpose. 



			
				Steve said:
			
		

> One interesting wrinkle with this story is that, once the women got married at age 14, she was technically an adult. So, any money paid on her record was her debt and not her mother's.


And I agreed that this was legally true, even though the woman obviously knew nothing about the payments, according to what she states in the article.



			
				Steve said:
			
		

> But all of that aside, if the woman were older and had received the money directly 29 years ago, would you be okay with the government pursuing collection? Strictly commenting on the age of the debt, is 29 years too far back to go? Should someone be given a pass after a period of time? If so, what's the cut off, in your opinion?



I would be fine with the government pursuing the debt in that case. What I'm not fine with is them *stealing* her tax return for it. Every state has a statute of limitations on old debt, a period of time beyond which a person cannot be sued for an old debt. This doesn't mean that an old debt is not owed, simply that they cannot file suit against it. The longest statute of limitations is in Kentucky, where it is 15 years. Now here we have a debt that is almost twice that old and, never mind filing suit, the government simply steals the money when they have the chance. Why does the government NOT have to follow the same laws as the rest of the country? That's my biggest problem with this whole scenario. It's not whether the woman can afford it, or whether it is legally owed, but that the government has _its own set of rules_, which are disconnected to the laws which govern the rest of us. 

Since I like analogies, here's one that I feel fits ... my ex-wife owes me back child support as well as other money she borrowed from me from over 20 years ago. If she handed me her keys to get something out of her car and I sold it instead to help pay that debt she owes me, would I not get accused of theft? How is it not theft when the one owed is the government instead of an individual?



			
				Drasken said:
			
		

> I don't see fraud here, it was a mistake due to not knowing the law.


I would appreciate someone proving that to me.


----------

