vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
The buyer discloses the financing arrangements to the seller because it makes his offer more attractive. When a seller receives and accepts an offer, the deal does not usually close until 30 to 60 days later.  If the buyer cannot come up with the money by closing, the deal falls apart.  This is a risk for the seller. When a seller is considering whether or not to accept an offer, it is helpful to know the likelihood that the buyer can actually obtain the amount of cash in the offer by the closing date.  If the buyer can't acquire the funding, the offer isn't worth the paper it is printed on. The amount of the down payment vs. the amount of financing is also relevant to the seller.  Let me give you a real-world example that happened to me once when I was selling a house.  The buyer was doing a no-money-down mortgage and had no money for a down payment.  He was even borrowing the closing costs.  We accepted the offer, but when the bank did the appraisal, it was short of the purchase price.  For most home sales, this would not be a problem, as long as the appraisal was more than the amount borrowed.  But in this case, because the amount borrowed was more than the appraisal, the bank had a problem.  The deal was at risk, and in order to continue either the buyer had to find some money somewhere (which he couldn't), or we had to lower the price to save the deal.  Certainly, accepting the offer from a buyer with no cash to bring to the table was a risk. (In our case, we got lucky. We found some errors that were made in the appraisal, and got it redone.)
On the off chance that your indebted person is unwilling to pay and you know they have the methods, it's a great opportunity to utilize your neighborhood sheriff. You have three alternatives to gather: a bank exact, wage garnishment, or a land lien.  It sounds like you'll have to contact your nearby police/sheriff's specialty and they can additionally enable you to out and get you your cash.
And then there is the issue of people who actually don't intend to reduce the size of their loan. They only want to pay the interest, so their debt with the bank remains constant. If you are upside down, it means you will not have the financial means to remove the debt. If, for some reason, you are no longer able to pay the bank, you might lose the house. After that you will have no house, but you still have a debt with the bank.
Time value of money means it's a no brainer: if it doesn't cost you anything extra (ie. Interest) then you pay over time.  You must pay it. It is not optional. You won't be able to fight it and win. Someone paid taxes in your behalf and you are obligated to reimburse them. Not paying is a great way to trigger a foreclosure. You will be considered in default of your mortgage if you do not pay them.
This is basically the same as any other loan out there that defers payments.  The bank doesn't care because your balance with them keeps going up along with their future profits when you pay that balance back.  The only point where this becomes a problem for them is when you get to a point where your monthly income no longer supports the minimum payment required. (BTW, this is basically a study of what the US Treasury is doing with the national debt and the annual budget deficit, but I will go over to politics.stackexchange.com before commenting on the wisdom of this.)
If you give money to a person or entity, and they don't have the ability to pay you back, it doesn't matter if they are legally required to pay you.
It looks like your visa being refused is entirely irrelevant. What happens in bankruptcy is that all the assets of the bankrupt entity are taken over, liquidated, and the proceeds are distributed to the creditors. You're one of the creditors, and as you've been told - the proceeds are not enough to pay all the creditors in full. This is quite common in bankruptcies. What you can do is sue in court and demand priority over other creditors, but... a. You're exactly the same as many other creditors (rest of the students), so why would you get a priority? b. Suing costs money and even if you get more, you'll pay way more for legal fees and expenses. What else can you do? If you paid with a credit card - your credit card company may be able to reverse charges. Sometimes that works, depending on how fast you move. If you paid with a check - your bank may similarly be able to stop payment on the check. This provided it hasn't been settled yet.
Legally, I can't find any reason that the LLC could not lend money to an individual. However, I believe the simplest course of action is to first distribute money from your company to your personal account, and then make it a personal loan. Whether the loan is done through the business or personally, financially I don't think there is much difference as to which bucket the interest income goes into, since your business and personal income will all get lumped together anyway with a single person LLC. Even if your friend defaults on the loan, either the business or you personally will have the same burden of proof to meet that the loan was not a gift to begin with, and if that burden is met, the deduction can be taken from either side. If a debt goes bad the debtor may be required to report the debt as income.
You absolutely can be put in jail in America for debt... if that debt is to a government or government agency (like a municipal government). If you have unpaid court costs, fines, etc., it's common practice in most municipalities to issue an arrest warrant for those, even if non-payment is due to being indigent. In a lot of cases, even if you show up to explain why you can't pay or make a partial payment on the due date, you'll be arrested and jailed until a judge is available to hear your explanation, if one isn't available right when you go in. What's supposed to happen is that if you're indigent (can't pay), a judge will hear your explanation and, provided it's determined that you're indigent, make adjustments to what you owe (cancel or reduce the amount, extend the due date, setup a payment plan, etc.) and send you on your way. It bears mentioning that even in cases where the system works like it should, there's still a very real chance of being put in jail, which isn't harmless - people can and do lose their jobs while they're sitting in jail waiting to plead indigence to a judge. And of course, what's supposed to happen isn't what always does. The police shootings of the past couple years in Missouri have shone some light in a lot of dark corners down there, where there are, in fact, de-facto debtor prisons in many municipalities. In addition to civil rights groups filing suit over this in many Missouri municipalities, the US Department of Justice has filed suit against the city of Ferguson over their municipal practices (including their use of the courts and jails to generate municipal revenue). Some forms of private debt (like child support) also fall under this umbrella where an arrest warrant will be issued for failure to pay for any reason, and this was determined to be a factor in the Walter Scott shooting - Walter Scott ran to avoid being put in jail over child support debt, and losing his job while in jail. The New York Times highlighted his case in an article titled: Skip Child Support. Go to Jail. Lose Job. Repeat.
Wrong way round. Transitional arrangements are non-binding guidelines that the lenders can observe if they choose to. The borrower - like your friend - doesn't  get to choose whether to use them or not. Your friend obviously can't afford the property, so if you do this, all I can say is congratulations on buying your new house, and I hope you got a deal on the mortgage.
Do you have the following information? If the above conditions are met, you can use the county sheriff department to put a lien on his bank account. You can also garnish wages if he has a job but you don't know all of the above.
"This is more of a long comment but may answer user's situation too. I have dealt with joint mortgages before in 3 states in the US. Basically in all three states if one party wants to sell, the home goes up for sale. This can be voluntary or it can go up via auction (not a great choice). In 2 of the 3 states the first person to respond to the court about the property, the other party pays all legal fees. Yes you read this right. In one case I had an ex who was on my mortgage, she had no money invested in the house ($0 down and still in college with no job). [If she wasn't on the mortgage I wouldn't have gotten loan - old days of dumb rules] When we split her lawyer was using the house as a way to extort other money from me. Knowing the state's laws I already filed a petition for the property but put it on hold with the clerk. Meaning that no one else could file but if someone tried mine would no longer be on hold. My ex literally spent thousands of dollars on this attorney and they wanted to sell the house and get half the money from the house. So sale price minus loan amount divided between us. This is the law in almost every state if there is no formal contract. I was laughing because she wanted what would be maybe 50-75K for paying no rent, no money down, and me paying for her college. Finally I broke her attorney down (I didn't lawyer up but had many friends who were lawyers advising). After I told her lawyer she wasn't getting anything - might have said it in not a nice way - her lawyer gave me her break down. To paraphrase she said, ""We are going to file now. My assistant is in the court clerk's office. You can tell the court whatever you want. Maybe they will give you a greater percentage since you put the money down and paid for everything but you are taking that chance. But you will pay for your lawyer and you will need one. And you will pay for me the entire time. And this will be a lengthy process. You would be better served to pay my client half now."
Over the years since then she has gotten letters every now and then demanding she pay the amount off, she ignores these. Most of these letters even included very favorable terms (full forgiveness for 20% of the amount) At this point the statute time has run out on the debt so there is no recourse for anyone to collect from her. The statute time limit varies from state to state. Some states it is as long as 10 years in others it is as short as 3 years. What this means is that counting from the date of the repossession, incurrance of debt, last payment, or agreement to pay whichever is later if the statute period has elapsed and the lender/collector has not filed a suit against you by the end of the period then they have effectively abandoned the debt and cannot collect. Find out what that period of time is in your state. If you can avoid the collection agencies till that period runs out you are scott free. You just have to make sure that you do not ever send them any money, or agree to pay them anything as this resets the calendar. If you do not want to wait for the calendar to run out if you wait long enough you will probably be offered favorable terms to pay only a fraction of the remaining amount, you just have to wait it out. Note, I normally would not endorse anyone not paying off their debts. However sometimes it is necessary and it is for this type of situation that we have things like this and bankruptcy.
"Is this a hypothetical question? It sounds like a combination of ""can my amount owed on a card go negative (i.e. a credit) and can I deposit to someone else's XXX account. My wife kept her last name. when I pay her charge card I've never gotten rejected, I don't see why this wouldn't work if a stranger gave me their number and address to make payment."
You will do a deed in lieu or the short sale depending on how the market it and what the house can be sold for. You and the bank will have to work it out. This will ruin for a credit for a while, and you will not likely qualify to get a new mortgage for at least a few years. You can stop paying your mortgage, tell the bank and they will foreclose. This is going to ruin your credit for a long time as well as disqualify you from mortgages in the near future. Don't do this. If you are planning a foreclosure, take the time to contact your bank and arrange a short sale or a deed in lieu. There isn't really any excuse to go into foreclosure if you are having problems. Talk to the bank and work out a deal.
Since you only own half of the house, you would most likely need the cooperation of whoever owns the other half in order to use it as collateral for a loan, but if you can do that, there's no reason you couldn't do what you're talking about.  The complication is that if you default on the loan, the bank isn't going to seize half of the house.  They'll repossess the entire house, sell it, and take what they're owed out of the proceeds, leaving you and whoever owns the other 50% to fight over the remnants. Even if the owner of the other half is family, they may be hesitant to risk losing the house if you don't pay your mortgage, so this could be a dicey conversation.
"No idea what you are trying to say here.   You default on a loan, student or otherwise, by not paying.  That is what creates the default, but you still owe it.   Student loans actually can be discharged, but it is very uncommon and an uphill battle.  You have to prove ""undue hardship"" which has a rather high standard.  The last firm I worked at did manage to get a large amount of student loans discharged for someone who was in a car wreck and became a quadriplegic after incurring the student loan.  And even that was not an easy case,  my old firm was actually rather pleased at their success."
If you leave your job (or lose it) the loan is due on separation. You'll pay tax and a10% penalty.
"Most likely that's the amount of interest that accrued on the loan while you were in school.  If you had paid that amount before 6/21, you would have just paid off accrued interest and your loan balance would have stayed the same. Since you did not pay the interest, it will be added to your loan balance and you will just pay it off as part of the loan (plus compounded interest).   If you pay off your loan at 5% over 30 years (hopefully you won't, but that's what they're amortized for), that $350 will compound and become $1,563.  Essentially you're ""borrowing"" $350 at 5% interest for 30 years. Hopefully that motivates you to pay it off sooner that that..."
You're going to want to work with a collection agency or law firm that specializes in collections. They'll buy the debt from you for something like 10-25% depending on the state and whether they are interested in something this small. People who don't pay rent and get wages garnished for $6k are a bad risk. They'll discount the judgement significantly since the risk of bankruptcy is probably pretty high.
I wanted to know that what if the remaining 40% of 60% in a LTV (Loan to Value ratio ) for buying a home is not paid but the borrower only wants to get 60% of the total amount of home loan that is being provided by lending company. Generally, A lending company {say Bank] will not part with their funds unless you first pay your portion of the funds. This is essentially to safeguard their interest. Let's say they pay the 60% [either to you or to the seller]; The title is still with Seller as full payment is not made. Now if you default, the Bank has no recourse against the seller [who still owns the title] and you are not paying. Some Banks may allow a schedule where the 60/40 may be applied to every payment made. This would be case to case basis. The deal could be done with only paying 20% in the beginning to the buyer and then I have to pay EMI's of $7451.  The lending company is offering you 1.1 million assuming that you are paying 700K and the title will be yours. This would safeguard the Banks interest. Now if you default, the Bank can take possession of the house and recover the funds, a distress sale may be mean the house goes for less than 1.8 M; say for 1.4 million. The Bank would take back the 1.1 million plus interest and other closing costs. So if you can close the deal by paying only 20%, Bank would ask you to close this first and then lend you any money. This way if you are not able to pay the balance as per the deal agreement, you would be in loss and not the Bank.
The key idea he should focus on is that every debt includes interest - the money he didn't borrow, but now owes. The interest goes straight to the lender pocket and the debtor has to get money somewhere for that interest. That's the key reason of why getting another loan only increases pressure on the debtor - with the new loan he owes new interest in addition to what he already owed.
You and your daughter need to consult a lawyer.  Generally, the court decides how the family debts get split in a divorce, and it sounds like the court decided that this student debt belongs solely to your daughter and not her husband.  Whether that was the correct decision or not depends on lots of details, but of course, your daughter didn't help herself at all by getting a cheap divorce and not having her own attorney.  At this point, you and your daughter should consult a good attorney, show him or her the divorce decree and the loan paperwork, and he or she should be able to tell you if anything can be done.  As far as your own personal exposure to the debt as the cosigner, that depends on the paperwork you signed and is another question for the attorney.
I can't find the underlying legislation, but a few online resources suggest that if you contact a lender about a payment plan, they should put repayments on hold temporarily: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/keeps-you-awake/payday-rights.html We don’t think it’s fair if your lender: [...] Doesn’t help you   get on top of things if you ask for help or “breathing space” to sort   things out. https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/borrowing-money/types-of-borrowing/loans/payday-loans/payday-loans-reasons-to-complain-about-your-lender/ If you've had problems repaying the loan, you can complain if your payday lender: [...] did not offer to freeze interest and charges if you are able to make payments under a reasonable repayment plan https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/problems-paying-back-payday-loans By law, they must: [...] Suspend recovery of the debt for a reasonable period if you’re developing a repayment plan with a debt adviser or on your own I'd start by making an immediate complaint to the lender. Make them aware that you're unable to meet basic living expenses because of the money they took, and ask for them to suspend collection temporarily and for the money to be returned. I would also dispute the charge with your bank on the grounds that it should not have been taken given the circumstances, and ask for them to credit your account while they investigate the dispute. They may not be too keen given it'll leave you overdrawn if they later reject the dispute, but it's worth asking. In parallel with that, contact Citizens Advice and/or the Financial Ombudsman (details in the links) and see if there's anything they can do or suggest.
Typically the least formal agreement for any type of lending is a Promisory Note (of which you can find plenty across the web, although I'd suggest picking up a Nolo book from the library and using their templates -- I think the book holding your type of form would be the Personal Legal forms Book). Still, $10k is a very large amount of money to lend to a friend and he probably is better off going to a bank and asking for an unsecured line of credit (not a credit card, but rather a general loan) and doing the money that way because typically that amount of money is small to the bank and they will already have the licenses/assets in place to handle collateral and such (which can be very tricky to do on your own).
Specifically, issuing credit with no escape hatch for the borrower in the case where repayment becomes impossible leads to morally odious outcomes like being forced to sell your children into sex slavery in order to pay off your debts, or being held in debt-peonage forever.  If you read the bible with an eye to the real experience ordinary people had of debt in the societies it arose from, you can see where the motivation for these constraints on lending were coming from.
Every time I have loaned money to family members I have never gotten the money back. If they can't make the down payment, they should not be taking out the loan. It's a bad idea to loan money to friends, because when they can't pay you back (which might be forever) they avoid you. So, you lose both your money and your friends.
"Serious answer: This would be a horrible idea for you, so don't do it.  Theoretical answer:  This gets more complicated.  If you are refusing to pay your student loans, this is bad for the economy because you just destroyed the value associated with that payment.  You essentially robbed the person holding the debt (since you promised to pay it off).    However, you also stimulate the economy by buying goods.  I'm just an armchair economist, but I would say that the detriment of not paying your debt is higher than the benefit of paying for the goods.  Now, lets say you never say your not paying of your loans, and instead just pay the minimum payment and buy the goods.  Now you are helping the economy because your debt is still generating money *and* you are injecting real money through your payment.  So you essentially made more money for the economy.  So long as the ""system"" believes you can pay of the debt, the ""system"" is able to hold more money.  This is actually why most credit companies *want* you to pay the minimum balance (that, and the interest earns them far more money than you borrowed)."
In some cases even seemingly benign clauses, like ""escape clauses"" allowing one party a ""free out"", can make the contract unenforceable as they could be abused to the severe detriment of one party. There are also jurisdiction-specific rules, such as limits on ""finance charges"" for debts not owed to a ""bank"" (a bar, for instance, cannot charge 10% on an outstanding tab in the United States). This is HUGE for your example, because if Person A had specified an interest rate in excess of the allowed rate for non-bank lenders, not only will the contract get thrown out even though Person B agreed to the terms, but Person A could find themselves on the hook for punitive damages payable to Person B, FAR in excess of the contracted amount. Given that the agreement meets all tests of validity for a contract, if either party fails to perform in accordance with the contract, causing a loss or ""tort"" for the other party, the injured party can sue. Generally the two options are ""strict performance"" (the injuring party is ordered by the court to comply exactly with the terms of the contract), or payment of net actual damages and dissolution of the contract. In your example, if Person A had lent Person B money, strict performance would mean payment of the debt in the installments agreed, at the rate agreed; actual damages would be payment of the outstanding balance plus current interest charges (without any further penalty). Notice that it's ""net"" damages; if Person A was to issue the loan in installments, and missed one, causing Person B to suffer damages from the loss of expected cash flow directly resulting in their failure to pay according to the terms, then Person B's proven damages are subtracted from A's; very often, the plaintiff in a suit to recover money can end up owing the defendant for a prior failure to perform. There are further laws governing bankruptcy; basically, if the other person cannot satisfy the contract and cannot pay damages, they will pay what they can, and the contract is terminated with prejudice (""no blood from a turnip"")."