Credit & Money Management
When Your Brother is a Real Deadbeat
Should you settle a deceased relative's unpaid debts?
By Knight Kiplinger, Editor in Chief
From Kiplinger's Personal Finance magazine, December 2007
Advertisement
My unmarried brother died recently at 28. Everyone in our family (which is fairly wealthy) knew he was irresponsible with money. Now we find that he left behind a lot of debts -- including money owed to some close friends -- with almost no assets to repay them. Should my parents and I try to settle these accounts?
No one has a legal obligation to pay the personal debts of a deceased relative. But it could be both ethical and smart for your family to do so, to protect its good name.
And besides, it's possible that your parents feel some moral responsibility, whether it is warranted or not, for your late brother's irresponsibility. Parents are like that.
A tempting offer
I recently had some house painting done by a local firm that is pretty expensive. One of its best painters -- still employed there -- later contacted me and offered to do additional work at my house, on his own, for a much lower hourly rate. Although I'm tempted, I'm not sure how I should respond.
This painter is violating his obligation to his employer, and you should tell him you won't be a party to it. But if he resigns from the company and starts working for himself, you are then free to do business with him -- if, in your opinion, his low price outweighs his low ethics.
Have a money-and-ethics question you'd like answered in this column? Write editor in chief Knight Kiplinger at ethics@kiplinger.com.
Reader Comments (4)
Posted by: Bret at 11/14/2007 10:02:42 AM
Regarding paying your deceased brothers debts: Those who loaned him moeny in the first place were fools for lending him money uncollateralized in the first place. All of us can "punch out" at any time regardless of our degree of responsibility. When you loan money out, ability to repay, and (yes) the possibility of the "worst case" situation should be considered. I forget who said this, but it's worth quoting "neither a borrower nor a lender be". Words to live by.
Posted by: Gilbert Fisher at 11/14/2007 10:57:54 AM
While it may be unethical for an employee to solicit an employer's client, I am not sure it is unethical for the homeowner to accept, assuming the current contract is fulfilled. The much bigger concern with this situation, is whether the employee working alone is licensed and insured. What happens if the painter gets hurt while doing your job, and s/he has no workers comp insurance, etc. Suddenly the extra the client was paying could seem real cheap.
Posted by: Nomen at 11/14/2007 11:27:14 AM
Sorry, but I don't agree with your suggestions on either story. First, I feel that the deadbeat's debt to close friends should not be paid off. The close friends probably knew he was a deadbeat and they were enablers to his lifestyle. Enablers should have to pay the price of poor judgment no matter how well intentioned.
Now as to the painter. We need more information. Does the painter have a contract with his employer not to compete? If not,then does his employer typically paint the outside of houses and the painter was offering to do inside or special work not offered by his employer. How much per hour does the employer charge for the painter's work compared to what is actually paid to the painter. If the painter asked for a raise, would he be replaced with someone who would work for less? Since most businesses no longer show any loyalty to even their best employees and would outsource their work or replace them for any reason no matter how trivial, it makes me laugh to see you talk about the obligation or ethics of the employee. If you believe that employers have the right to do whatever it takes to make more money,then the employees should be free to do the same.
Posted by: KENNETH NAUGLE at 11/14/2007 11:51:32 AM
I'm puzzled by the answer to the question about hiring a painter to do off hours work. It appears that the ethical problem is using the employers customer list to find work on the side, thus depriving the employer of appropriate profit. If this is the case, I still think there is an ethical question whether or not he quits the company because it would not be ethical IMO to use this information to cherry pick a former employer's customers using information obtained while working there.
Also, if this person is a contract or hourly worker as opposed to a salaried worker also affects the issue. In the case above, for example, if I had some kind of personal relationship with this painter there might be less of an issue than if I only knew him by his PAINTCO truck and uniform because he didn't necessarily get my name from the company and is working on his own time. A salaried worker on the other hand owes much greater allegiance to his company.