Okay last night I turned on Suzy O. I can't stand her but was waiting for another problem to go on. She started going on that a spouse is LIABLE for a CC debt even if the spouse did not apply for the card, is not an AU or signed for the card,and had nothing to do with the card. So what gives ? Any of my cards have nothing to do with my spouse and never has a collector ever tried to get my spouse involved. Was she speaking of states that have oh what the heck is the term? You know where everything is mutually owned? Or what the heck was she speaking of? Thanks Woofer
Can't stand her either - snakeoil salesperson. She was rambling about socalled community property states
In some states a spouse can be held liable, but it is complicated. A blanket statement such as the original statement cannot be made.
In a community property state if one spouse does not pay a credit card bill that is only in their name does it effect the credit rating of the other spouse?I don't think so!
If the account is a store account (as opposed to a bank card account that can be used only at one chain--which is the current model, true store accounts are now dinosaurs), and the purchases are necessities, it's possible that the doctrine of necessaries (aka doctrine of necessities) would operate to make a non-accountholder spouse liable. The same principle affects medical situations.
I think some of this refers to underlying assets that could be attached; such as joint bank accounts, property, etc. I'm not sure Suzie used the term "liable" accurately and correctly in that statement. Perhaps "exposed" would be a better term.
Well, a clear indication is the wording in the FDCPA, that a CA cannot even speak to a spouse about a debt (w/o their permission), and only to try and locate the debtor. However, an examination of the collections processess highlights that this statement is not fully correct. If one spouse defaults on a CC for instance, the CC company cannot "report" the negative history on the other spouses credit report (except for joint/authorized user accounts). Even a legal suit would be brought against only the debtor spouse, not as a joint suit. (again, there are some exceptions under various situations and state laws). I'm certain Zuzie Orman did say this over and over, that is her style. But like anything, take it with a grain of salt (or two in this case).
The key exception being the doctrine of necessities, and as we've both noted, its ambit is extremely limited in the modern era. Owing to problems of proof (are we going to go to court and go over register tapes?), I don't think you're going to see it in the consumer situation unless some family in a far-flung part of Alaska gets heavily into debt with the one local trading post they can buy from on an open account. Where you will see it is in the medical and hospitalization context. And it comes up time and time again on the boards ... how did my spouse's debt wind up on my CRA report, or how did my ex make me liable for doctors' visits she took our kids to that I never even knew about? Medical providers know all about the doctrine of necessities, and they use it freely.
Exactly, and good example... Although many people have to be careful over that "one line" on the (medical services) information form of "responsible party", which is usually buried in the insurance information. Many people believe they are merely entering the main insurance subscriber's name...need to read the fine print.
