Mother Wants Dead Son's Students Loans to be Forgiven

<p>@3rdtimearound - “Is it common practice for federal loans to be forgiven after death, regardless of a living co-signer?”</p>

<p>Yes, according to the Federal Student Aid page on the U.S. Department of Education’s website, there is an automatic “Death Discharge” when the borrower dies.</p>

<p>[Forgiveness</a>, Cancellation, and Discharge | Federal Student Aid](<a href=“http://studentaid.ed.gov/repay-loans/forgiveness-cancellation]Forgiveness”>http://studentaid.ed.gov/repay-loans/forgiveness-cancellation)</p>

<p>Do these federal loans that can be discharged with death require a co-signer?</p>

<p>^^^^^
I am not certain. But it does not matter either way. If the loan is discharged, then the borrower and any co-signer would be released.</p>

<p>I don’t think federal student loans require co-signers, which is why if the student dies, there is no debt.</p>

<p>Apparently a cosigner isn’t needed for most Federal loans so this person in the article wouldn’t have cosigned those so she would have been under no obligation to pay those which is why those loans went away. That doesn’t absolve her responsibility to pay for the one she did cosign though.</p>

<p>(From the government loan website)

[Loans</a> | Federal Student Aid](<a href=“http://studentaid.ed.gov/types/loans]Loans”>http://studentaid.ed.gov/types/loans)</p>

<p>GladGradDad.
I don’t think “forgiveness” is a ridiculous term, it is older than most terms of either credit or debit. It is the verbiage used in many state regulations concerning laws. If she truly suffers from capital-D Depression, than that is a legitmate medical condition that can make working quite difficult. It was her responsibility to understand the terms before signing, but asking for loan forgiveness is perfectly legitimate</p>

<p>Kind of scary to think of a 61 year old being characterized as “elderly”. I do understand that she probably did not foresee this with this loan and would bet that someone has already paid this off for her. It’s tough because lots of people end up with unforeseen expenses .</p>

<p>I don’t understand what the difference is if her son were living but unable to pay and the bank comes after her.</p>

<p>The difference is that this type of scenario is more likely to pull at people’s heartstrings. I really don’t know what the answer is in these types of cases. So many people have financial problems these days. I’ve caught shows(like the Ellen Show) where people are given cars, money,etc. because somebody wrote in that they were having a hard time financially ( can’t pay the mortgage, can’t afford a car to get to work,etc). What about all the people that don’t write in, petition, make it well known publically they’re in dire straits?</p>

<p>

I know it’s used but I still don’t like the use of it in this context due to the connotation of the word. No one is ‘forgiven’ because in the end there’s a debt that goes unpaid and it costs someone other than the borrower money. It’s not an emotional state of mind that the word is typically associated with that occurs when someone doesn’t pay back a loan, it’s a tangible defaulting of paying back the loan leaving someone else on the hook for the money.</p>

<p>And if the lender isn’t willing to ‘forgive’ the person there must be something wrong with the lender because to forgive is golden after all. In fact what they’re doing is ‘foregoing’ collecting the debt.</p>

<p>It’s just semantics, I know, but that’s why I think it’s a ridiculous term in this context - because of the normal connotation of the word with an emotional state.</p>

<p>On a different note - I wonder if there’s any money left to be returned by the colleges in this case since he’s no longer attending or still in his account that hasn’t been sent to the college yet? I suppose that’s probably already been determined.</p>

<p>The difference to me is that Ella Edwards has lost her only child, is fighting depression and doesn’t have funds readily available to pay back the loan. Although it is reported that she has gone back to work. Then I took a look at Jermaine’s Facebook page, and it appears to me that this was a decent family who tried hard to rise above difficult circumstances.</p>

<p>So I think Sevmom is correct, this is the kind of story that pulls on your heartstrings. The legal obligation is clearly there, and questions do arise as to where do you draw the line with these sorts of cases. But I look at my life and feel extremely fortunate. My family is in tact, I can meet my financial obligations, life is good. So feeling some compassion for someone not so fortunate, is not a big stretch.</p>

<p>^^ There’s a difference between feeling compassion for someone’s misfortune and translating that into a bank dismissing the loan the person obliged themselves to pay. Lenders don’t have a compassion/sympathy clause in the contract and would probably not last long in the business if they did. People die, become disabled, lose their jobs, go through expensive divorces, have sudden family obligations, are victims of crime, and have other bad things happen to them that one should have empathy for them for but that doesn’t mean that a business, which isn’t an emotional being, should use that as a basis for no longer requiring someone to pay their debts. Again, they wouldn’t last long in business if they did this every time and where is the line drawn?</p>

<p>I don’t see a connection between the compassion and the loan - they’re disconnected items. Should she now no longer need to pay her mortgage or car loan or CC debt either because of the unfortunate thing that happened to her?</p>

<p>If enough people feel compassion for her with their wallets then maybe they will (or already have) pay the loan for her. I agree that it’s a terrible situation this woman is in.</p>

<p>As I stated in a previous post, I think Ella took the wrong tact here. I do not condone the attempt to shame the bank into forgiving the debt. They are entitled to enforce their legal rights. She should have enlisted the help of a family member or friend to start a campaign for contributions. I believe there are many who would feel compassion for her situarion and contribute.</p>

<p>That is the aspect of this that does trouble me. If every business just wrote off a person’s debts just because they had died,it would get very strange. Hopefully, someone already has or will step up to pay this debt.
Many times I’ve seen in obituaries requests for help with funeral expenses or help for kids. Not sure what the answer is.</p>

<p>Interesting find in a local paper this morning…</p>

<p>[Radio</a> host Tom Joyner says he’ll pay $10K debt owed by Ypsilanti woman on her deceased son’s student loan](<a href=“http://www.annarbor.com/news/ypsilanti/radio-host-tom-joyner-says-hell-pay-10k-debt-owed-by-ypsilanti-woman-on-her-dead-sons-student-loan/]Radio”>Radio host Tom Joyner says he'll pay $10K debt owed by Ypsilanti woman on her deceased son's student loan)</p>

<p>From the article linked by Ema - </p>

<p>

What exactly did she think cosigning was? It’s potentially being on the hook for paying for something someone else uses.</p>

<p>And -

If she couldn’t reasonably afford to pay the loan then she never should have cosigned. If she needs to come out of retirement (although she must have retired earlier than most people since she’s only 61) and resume working in order to pay it off then she had no business cosigning it in the first place since she couldn’t reasonably afford it.</p>

<p>(quoting the mom)

Of course. It’s too bad she says this now but didn’t follow the practice before.</p>

<p>She purposely put herself on the hook for this loan, she should pay it back without begging others to do it for her.</p>

<p>

That’s rough - no one expects a 24 y/o who appears to be healthy to pass away like that but of course, it happens.</p>