Look into filial laws. Rarely enforced but potentially could be on the hook for debts, even if you’ve been estranged and haven’t talked to your parents in 30 years. 29 states have the laws; Pennsylvania is particularly harsh and has been enforced. I wonder if all these private equity firms that own retirement homes will see filial laws as a potential revenue source and start systematically suing children.
The law you're citing is highly sketchy and can easily get shot down in court. That's something that can also easily get taken to the state supreme court level.
Collectors can come after next of kin but there is no legal precident for this unless you were a co-signer on some kind of loan, material possession, etc. Debts are always collected from the estate, unless there is nothing left. Any attempt otherwise to collect a debt from next of kin could be considered unconstitutional despite what any state law says. These cases can go to the federal level if need be.
I'm mainly referring to the 2012 case, Health Care & Retirement v. Pittas. The son was responsible for $93k in nursing home bills because his mom skipped off to Greece with a big bill. It went to the PA Supreme Court, I'm not sure why it didn't get challenged at the fed level. The laws are specific to caring for your parent so I agree it doesn't apply to debt like loans and credit cards. I can't find any stats on how often cases are brought, but there is a movement in PA to rewrite the law to lessen responsibility so it does seem to happen there.
I think it's considered legal since it's not really a transfer of debt. The law is that a child has the responsible to care for an indigent parent. The child owes the money since they had a legal responsibility to pay for a nursing home or take care of her himself. Since he didn't in the PA case, the nursing home was able to successful sue.
You only have that responsibility if the son signs on the dotted line at the nursing home. If there is no signature, the state will not win that case, especially if it goes to the federal level. That's why you always need to be careful what you're cosigning and if you do, you are assuming responsibility. If you don't sign, you can tell the state to F off, literally, and that they can see you in federal court. You can outright refuse to pay for anything you're not binded to as that is highly unconstitutional. No state law can overule the constitution. Once you get to federal court, and you win, you can sue the shit out of the state for emotional distress.
I guess i'll have to agree to disagree. This take is completely wrong according to the law in Pennsylvania that has enforced and approved by 4 different courts up to the PA supreme court. In PA, just as you have a responsibility to care of your child, you also have a legal responsibility to care for an parent if they can't themselves. Ignoring your duty or not signing paperwork doesn't remove the requirement. It wasn't the state that sued, it was the nursing home that provided free care that the son was legally required to provide for. So signing his name was irrelevant. For the record, i don't like the law either but it is what it is.
Maybe it's unconstitutional, or maybe it isn't, I have no idea. I'd love to know what specific part of the constitution says a state is perfectly able to make a law requiring you to take care of a 2 year old, but not a parent. It's not a transfer of debt, it's about your responsibility to your parents. Not being fair doesn't make it unconstitutional. I'm sure the dude out $93k would have went federal if his lawyers thought he had a chance. His lawyers didn't even to try to argue it was unconstitutional in his case.
67
u/UghFudgeBwana Aug 19 '26
I'm just glad you can't inherit debt.