vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
If your father is still able to make financial decisions and sign contracts, I see a better option. Have your father borrow against his equity to finance the renovation.  Example: the house is worth 400 now. He can borrow 100 against that. He spends it on the addition, making the house worth 500, with the same 400 of equity as before. (In some cases, spending 100 might add 150 to the house value, but let's assume here the increase is just what was spent.) When he dies, the mortgage has to be repaid. If he has no other money (that the two of you would otherwise split) then the mortgage has to be repaid by the two of you putting in cash. So you pay your brother 250 (half the new total value of the house) but he gives 50 of that to the bank for the mortgage. You also give 50 of your own money to the bank for the mortgage. Net result: your brother has 200 (the same as if he had inherited half the unimproved house), and you have a 500 house after paying out 300. Your gain is also the same as if the house was unimproved. Now if the house went up 150 by spending 100, or went up 60 by spending 100, you and your brother would also be sharing this profit or loss. If you don't want that to happen, you will need a different agreement. The advantage of the approach I'm suggesting is you just need one appraisal after your father dies.  Not accounted for in this is that you lived (without paying rent) in your father's house for some time, and that you worked (without being paid) as a caregiver to your father for that time. Some families might think those two things balanced, others might feel you need to be compensated for caring for him, and others that you need to compensate the others for your benefit of living in the large house. Be sure to discuss this with your brother so that you agree in advance whether a plan is fair or not.
What you are positioning as a loan was not a loan at all. Your father bought something to be delivered in the future. Your aunt does not want to deliver it, so she should buy it back at whatever the current market value is. What is the price that your dad believes her share of the inheritance is currently worth? Is that based on actual appraisals and some sort of objective audit? If so, your aunt doesn't have much of a case. If not, then she could seek an audit to bolster her bargaining position. How much did your aunt benefit from having a place to live for the last 15 years. Was that benefit greater than some larger amount of money at an unknown future date? That's probably why she sold her inheritance 15 years ago. Now that the inheritance looks like it is going to be available soon, she wants to trade back after having enjoyed the use of your father's money. That might be okay, but simply paying back the original sum with inflation, but without interest, doesn't seem fair to your father. She may not be able to afford to give any more than what she is offering, in which case, she might want to consider offering the original sum now and some portion of her inheritance as interest on that original sum. I'm not taking sides in this one. If it were one of my siblings, I'd be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt and take a smaller amount back if I felt that the lesson was learned (and if I felt that he/she would make wise use of my gift to him/her).  I have no idea what your father's current economic situation is, nor am I aware of any other baggage that might influence his feelings about his sister. It's as likely as not that money isn't really what is bothering him, in which case, the amount she repays may have little to do with bridging the divide between them. You might need to ask different questions in the Interpersonal Skills stack if you want to help your father feel better.
I think that you could probably structure a trust like this.  The terms would be that the money is in trust for Person A if they claim it by some deadline.  After that it will go to Person B.  This won't be a cheap option though, since you'll probably need an attorney to structure it properly.
"A few ideas. I suggest it would wise to consider what lesson is learned as a result of any resolution of a financial issue. Is it a lesson of responsibility and of the importance of keeping one's word, or of getting away with whatever happens (poorly planned business) with no adverse consequences. ""No"" consequences (e.g. forgiven loan) is also a consequence, and it sends a message. Sounds like paying the loan from your savings automatically means it's deducted from inheritance, since the savings are part of that inheritance. This may seem like a square deal if we ignore inflation. Assuming Today the $54K is worth much more than, unless it is adjusted for inflation, the same $54K will be worth (i.e. will allow to buy) a few decades from now, when the inheritance materializes.  So this option means your son is foregoing a significantly smaller financial loss in the future in exchange for foregoing his debt completely today. This is like borrowing $54K from a bank now, and only having to forego the same amount decades in the future when it is in fact worth much less. What borrower would not be happy with such arrangement, and what lender would do it? Only one's own loving parents :) You are in charge of what life lessons your son will walk away with from this situation. Good luck!"
As per JohnFx's comment above, consider whether it's worth more to you to just write this off. If not, if you feel that your son will be able to consider this without taking it personally, or you're willing to risk that relationship, then talk to him about it. Lay out the reasons why you need the money. If there are other children, it might be a simple matter of fairness to them. Based on your idea of deducting the money from his inheritance, I assume that the value you're docking from his inheritance will go somewhere else. Offer alternatives. You say that you can't take any money from him now, but letting him know that he can pay you in the future in lieu of loss of inheritance might be worthwhile. Be prepared with an idea of what to suggest if he says he can pay you some amount of money. Figure out what might be an acceptable payment plan and how to handle it if, at some point, he can't make payments for a time. This is a potentially ugly situation, and I can't guarantee that it will turn out better, but the more you prepare for the questions he's going to ask, the better off you're going to be.
If you're reasonably sure that the client isn't acting in good faith and you have no intention of doing business with them again, you can still make back some of the money.  Sell the debt to a collections agency if you don't want to go through the hassle of suing.  Make sure they're actually ignoring you though.  A friendly, non-confrontational phone call might jiggle something loose.  Especially if you give them the option to set up some sort of payment plan.
I would recommend against loans from family members. But if you decide to go down that path take care of the basics: This is a business decision so treat it like one. I would add that the situation you describe sounds extremely generous to your family member. I'd look at standard loan agreements (ie. in the marketplace) and model your situation more on them - if you do this, even with you paying a premium, you'd never come up with something as generous as what you have described.
The way to think about this is: what would happen to the family if stay-at-home Mom were to die. You obviously can't do anything about the loss, grief and trauma, but think about the financial implications. Assuming that Dad continues to work, and that the child is young, you are going to have to find someone to take care of him/her. If you have relatives willing to step in, that may be fine. but if not you will have to pay for daycare - an expense you don't now have. That's going to get less as the child goes to school, but not go away until he/she is old enough to look after themselves. Bringing up a child, as well as working a full time job, is pretty demanding. You may find that you don't have as much time for cleaning the house, cooking or other chores. Having a sum of money which can be used to hire help or pay for a few meals out can be very useful in these cases. Here is an article which places a value on the work done by a stay-at-home Mom. You might not need to pay for all of those services, but it gives you an idea of what the extra expenses might be.  Think about what extra money you might need to spend, and arrange for life insurance to cover it.
Etc. I'm sure plenty of people do things like this and it works out just great. But there are big risks. And by the way, apparently this was your idea, not your mother-in-laws. I wonder what her reaction is. Is she eager to help out her daughter and son-in-law and had nothing in particular to do with the money anyway? Or is she feeling very imposed on? It's one thing to ask relatives to let you borrow their car for the weekend. Asking someone to loan you $50,000 is a very big request. If one of my kids asked me to loan them $50,000 from my retirement fund, I'd consider that a very presumptuous request. (Unless they needed the money for life-saving surgery for my grandchild or some such.)"
"For some reason can't transfer it directly to his account overseas (something to do with security codes, authorized payees and expired cards). Don't become someone's financial intermediary. Find out exactly why he can't transfer the money himself, and then if you want to help him, solve that problem for him. Helping him fix his issue with his expired card, or whatever the real problem is, would be a good thing to do. Allowing him to involve you in the transaction, would be a bad thing to do.  Possible problems which might be caused by becoming directly involved in the transaction: -The relative is being scammed themselves, and doesn't realize it / doesn't realize the risks, and either wants you to take the risk, or simply thinks there is no risk but needs administrative help. -The person contacting you is not the relative - perhaps they are faking that person's identity, and are using your trust to defraud you. -The person is committing some form of fraud, money laundering, or worse, and is directly trying to defraud you in order to keep their hands clean. -The transaction may be perfectly legal, but is considered taxable in one or more countries. By getting involved, you might face tax filing obligations, or even tax payment obligations. -The transaction may be perfectly legal and legitimate, but might accidentally get picked up as potential fraud by a financial monitoring system, causing the funds to be held, and your account to be flagged for further investigation, creating headaches for you until it becomes resolved. There are possibly other ways that this can go awry, but these are the biggest possibilities I can think of. The only possible 'good' outcome here is that everything goes smoothly, and it works exactly as well as if your relative's ""administrative problems"" were solved first, and the money went through his own account. Handwaving about why your account is needed and his is faulty is a big red flag. If it is truly just an administrative issue on his end, help him fix that issue instead."
I can't speak about the UK, but here in the US, 1% is on the cheap side for professional management.  For example Fidelity will watch your portfolio for that very amount.  I doubt you could claim that they took advantage of her for charging that kind of fee. Given that this is grandma's money, no consultation with the family is necessary. Perhaps she did have dementia at the time of investment, but she was not diagnosed at the time.  If a short time has past between the investment and the diagnosis, I would contact the investment company with the facts.  I would ask (very nicely) that they refund the fee, however, I doubt they under obligation to do so. While I do encourage you to seek legal council, there does not seem to be much of substance to your claim.  The fees are very ordinary or even cheap, and no diagnosis precluded decision making at the time of investment.
"If the account is really only in your father's name and not even ""in trust"" for you, then you can't touch it, I'm afraid. And taking your family to small-claims court is something of a nuclear option. Hiitting sympathetic family members for a loan may be the best course here;. Anything you do to try to force cooperation is likely to be a ""nuclear option"" as far as getting back on peaceable terms with your family goes.  If you must resort to that, i'd suggest asking whether the local department of youth services, or s religious figure or someone else your father respects, could persuade him to cooperate. He might be more willing to listen to someone else."
Last question first:  The amount borrowed will not transfer to your loved ones upon death.  Even if you were age 50, it is somewhat unlikely you will die in 30 years. First question:  Are you okay with having a student loan that long?  Keep in mind that making payments for that long will hinder your ability to build wealth, buy a home, and have disposable income. Presumably you are used to living like a college student.  If you continue to do so, and maybe take on another job (for the time you used to spend in school), you could be done with this much sooner.  2k/month is doable and retires this in 5 years, but I would shoot for a shorter time frame than that. Hopefully by purposely incurring that much debt you bought yourself a high paying career.
Sorry for your loss. If the insurance money is now in an account under your names, you can might be able to withdraw the money. You should put a country tag and state tag on your question. EDIT: my initial response might incorrect -- see comments below. This is going to be state speficic and the amounts may be relevant. Best to seek professional advice!
As part of the cost benefit analysis, I would consider that the collections agency has often paid pennies on the dollar, so you can negotiate a lower amount if the bill is legitimate.  That may make paying the debt more attractive than fighting. If the bill is illegitimate then you would mainly consider what legal means they have to attempt to collect.  If they can put a lien on your property then you may want to settle it and avoid the hassle.  If all they can do legally is keep calling you and asking for the money, they may give up if you tell them that you have no intention of paying because you don't believe you owe anything and you look forward to telling them the same thing tomorrow, next week, and next year (followed by a change of subject--ask some personal questions and go into a discussion of the weather, etc.).  Whether they give up will depend on how strong they think their legal position is.
"The more I think about this the more I think you are actually better off letting it go to collections. At least then you would be able to agree an affordable repayment schedule based on your real budget, and having a big dent in your credit score because it's gone to collections doesn't actually put you in any worse position (in terms of acquiring credit in the future) than you are now.  Whoever is the creditor on your original loan is (IMO) quite unreasonable demanding a payment in full on a given date, especially given that you say you've only been made aware of this debt recently. The courts are usually much more reasonable about this sort of thing and recognise that a payment plan over several years with an affordable monthly payment is MUCH more likely to actually get the creditor their money back than any other strategy. They will also recognise and appreciate that you have made significant efforts to obtain the money. I'm also worried about your statement about how panicked and ""ready to give up"" you are. Is there someone you can talk to? Around here (UK) we have debt counselling bureaus - they can't help with money for the actual debt itself, but they can help you with strategies for dealing with debt and will explain all parts of the process to you, what your rights and responsibilities are if it does go to court, etc. If you have something similar I suggest you contact them, even just to speak to someone and find out that this isn't the end of the world. It's a sucky situation but in a few years you'll be able to look back and at least laugh wryly at it."
As I see it the two main considerations are:  Total amount of money received, for which the key variable is life expectancy. 41000 * 0.8 = 32800, so at £86 / week she would only be better off with the lump sum if she expected to live for less than ~7.3 years. Obviously none of us have a crystal ball, but you could make some assessment based on her current health, risk factors etc. to see whether that seemed feasible. Also you do have to bear in mind that the value of £86 in 7 years' time will be less than it is now - but I guess the £86 would be inflation adjusted? Her need for income (versus capital). If she takes a lump sum and invests it in a house, that is great but doesn't provide any income at all. If she has sufficient income from other sources (and forecasts this other income to continue until her death) then the lump sum might be more attractive, but if not then she would need to be sure that she wasn't tying up the money unnecessarily. Another option here would be using the lump sum to buy an annuity, and it might be wroth exploring this, but I doubt whether the rates would be good enough to beat the £86 / week she is being offered as an alternative. Another (lesser?) consideration is her future entitlement to state-funded care if needed in her later years. If you have assets above a certain amount you are expected to fund your own care, in which case having an expensive house might actually be more of a liability than a help.
Offer them $500 with the condition that you will have paid your liability in full and they don't report to the bureau. If they give you grief, hang up on the guy. Be aggressive and assertive -- the collector is going to get chewed out if he can't collect on something this simple. Don't allow them to give you some guilt trip, and don't sweat the deadline.
I had a debt collector call on a bill that was sent to collections because of a clerical error.  Instead of negotiating with the debt collector, I called the company that originally owned the debt. They allowed me to pay my bill without any late fees 6 months later, and they gave me a receipt to furnish to the debt collectors. I'm sure the debt collectors got a refund for the purchase of my debt. If your desire is to pay the debt, then you could still call the owner of the debt and see it they wish to work with you to get the debt paid.  Any contact with the original creditor will affect your legal rights with respect to collection and statutes of limitation, so you should be sure you want to pay the debt back in full before you take such a step.
"Your best option right now is to get a lawyer, file suit against your insurance for the full amount (total shown on the collections from the provider, without discounts) plus ""damages"".  Include in the damages the cost of your lawyer, time spent resolving this, and any other expenses you have incurred thus far in dealing with this.  Your lawyer will be able to give you guidance here.  I think you'll find that the insurance company changes their tune once they are served papers."
" Answer: There are a lot of protections or regulations in place to protect anyone who takes out a reverse mortgage. One being, you can't owe MORE than your house is valued at during the time of repayment, a reverse mortgage is a non-recourse loan. In the instance that your house is less than you owe, you either sell the home and the proceeds are used to pay the loan and you keep the rest OR if you owe more than the house proceeds of the home go to the lender. Either way, you're not left paying for a ""mortgage"" without the house. In the case the parent, grandparent passes, then the heirs would have a choice of either paying back the reverse mortgage in payments, OR they can sell the house, heirs are protected during this as well to make sure they're not left with major debt in case of anything. Is there a formula to figure out when the bank stops the monthly payments and then wants it back? **Answer:**The amount becomes due if loan terms are not met, but the lender will discuss the options if it comes to that. Is there a different formula for when the lump sum would have to be paid back?"" Answer: Each payout option has the same terms and the same pay back terms. As long as terms are met, the lender can't ask for early repayment."
Thank God that hospice can provide such care because the real problem is that there is a window of time when some elderly are too infirm to live independently but too poor to afford the atrocious high costs of assisted living care. This leaves quite a few elderly in the position of having to rely on the goodwill of relatives to take them in and who may not be emotionally or financially stable enough to withstand the stress that comes from being a caregiver for the elderly. If hospice can provide support for the family and the patient, more power to them.
I understand $14k/yr $5.4M max This isn't the right way to say it.  Your dad has a $5.4 million estate tax exclusion that can be used for gift tax.  In addition to that (not instead or as part of), he and his wife each have a $14k/year gift tax exclusion.  So if you aren't paying for two years from today, you actually have three years of gift tax exclusion:  2017; 2018; 2019.  So that's 3 * 2 * $14k = $84k that he (and his wife) can give you without using any of the estate tax exclusion.  But  I give my cousin/dad $430k from the mortgage According to this, you don't want your dad to give you any money.  You want to pay the entire $430k.  In that case, don't file gift tax forms.  He's not giving you money.  He's loaning you money.   I agree with the others.  The cleanest solution is for your cousin to loan you money to buy the house from your dad.  Pay a lawyer (or have your cousin/dad do it) so that it's legally written as a mortgage and you can get your interest deduction.  You start paying off the loan in two years.  Until then, interest accrues.  So instead of a $430k debt, you'd owe something like $470k.  Maybe more if your cousin pays the property taxes as well.   Your cousin is out $430k plus possibly property taxes, but apparently he can afford that.  You have a house and a mortgage.  Your dad has money to buy his Florida house.   Note that if your dad wanted to give you money, he could.  He could collect $346k from you (borrowed from your cousin) and give you $28k equity immediately and then two more payments in 2018 and 2019.  But that assumes that $346k is enough for him to buy his Florida house.  If not, just do the mortgage.  He can give you money by check which you can send to your cousin if he wants to do that.
Hospitals (most, I believe) are not allowed to turn away a person with a condition that would qualify as a life threatening emergency. The people without insurance cannot be left for dead, and yet the hospitals have to find a way to pay for their care. I believe there is some ways to get compensation from Medicaid, but this won't fully cover the cost, and hospitals are forced to raise prices on those with insurance. These increased costs are reflected in the prices of health insurance. A single payer system would address that shortfall of our current system, and a another huge cost in our system, the rise in tests, treatments and expensive care for our elderly. Right now huge amounts of money are being spent to extend the lives of the elderly patients by incremental amounts.