Disgrace period?

As my own student loan grace period draws to a close, and as SK and I keep vague tabs on, but don't interfere with, each other's loans (we both have them, though we don't carry any other kind of debt) I was interested in Abby's response to a woman who questioned her boyfriend's refusal to marry her while she's paying hers off:

DEAR ABBY: My boyfriend of several years has just told me he won't marry me as long as I have student loan debt to pay off. I have always been upfront with him about the amount of money I owe. It's a sizable sum, but my credit is good.
He says he loves me but cannot, in good faith, start a life with me owing that much money. Abby, am I wrong to think that student loans should not stop two people who love each other from getting married? -- LOANED OUT IN NORTH CAROLINA

DEAR LOANED OUT: No, you are not. And furthermore, I suspect that rather than the money being the issue, it's that your boyfriend has had a change of heart.

I'm inclined to agree with Abby and the writer here, in thinking that the boyfriend sounds less than ideal. However, I also wonder if she couldn't have done a better, more informative job with her response.

I always like when the columnists call in an expert--I wish she had called a bank, or a lawyer, to confirm whether the guy has anything to fear, before assuming that he's just looking for an excuse to leave.

Based on my quick-n-dirty google searching, he wouldn't be responsible for her loans, since they were incurred before their marriage (interestingly, I couldn't find any reliable answer to this on the directloans website). In fact, he would only become responsible for them if she consolidated or refinanced (which constitutes taking out a new loan) after they were married. But if he didn't understand this, marrying someone with tens of thousands of dollars of debt (or more) might seem like a scary thing.

If I were her, I'd point out to him that student loans are a very particular kind of debt. Credit card debt, for example, still might not become the spouse's responsibility, if they keep their finances separate (debt incurred after their marriage would). But even if you won't be held responsible, your partner's debt gives you insight into how they live and manage their assets. I could see choosing on principle not to be with someone who has tons of credit card debt, because it suggests they can't live within their means. Student loans, however, seem to be in a different category: almost everyone has them, and they suggest a desire to learn, improve, and (one would hope) pursue gainful employment.

Which raises another question. Did her loans allow her to complete schooling that led to a job that allows her to support herself while making regular loan payments? Or did she rack up debt pursuing a string of graduate-level degrees, in order to defer both her loans and reality?

Does he, or has he, had loans of his own?

Is the problem simply that he doesn't want her contributions to their hypothetical household to be limited because her first priority is to pay down her debt?

In the end, it seems that all of this moot, because of one key factor: that he didn't seem interested in asking any of these questions. If he doesn't even want to find out what their circumstances would be, or discuss how they'd handle responsibly handling her debt, then why bother trying to explain it to him? I guess that's what Abby's trying to get at.

I think what bugs me a bit is the writer's argument that people who love each other shouldn't be seprated by the cruel drama of student loan debt. Something about her argument that love and money have nothing to do with each other needs revision--and if that's how she truly feels, maybe her bf is wise to step back. Abby may have been right to suggest that this pair is doomed, but I wish she'd given the writer some tools to make that decision herself (such as questions to ask of herself and the guy about their debts and their attitudes), rather than just writing him (and the relationship) off as a bad investment.

Brother's (Book)Keeper?

Letter:

Dear Amy:
My 45-year-old brother-in-law has always been financially irresponsible. He filed for bankruptcy. Currently, he and his second wife live with my father-in-law and do not pay rent or help with any bills. My 90-year-old father-in-law's bank account is being depleted because of the son's irresponsibility.

My husband and I have always been responsible with our finances. Last week we received a message on our answering machine from a collection agency asking for my brother-in- law to be responsible and pay his bills.

This is the second such call we have received. He has never lived with us, and I am unsure of how the collection agency got our phone number.
I believe that my brother-in-law should be told that we have received this call and should take steps toward becoming responsible.

My husband says it is none of our business.

Who is right? — Frustrated

Dear Frustrated:
Your husband may know more than he is telling you.
For instance, it is possible that he has agreed to co-sign for a loan with his brother. This would explain how a collection agency had your phone number, and why your husband might want to ignore the calls.

You should ask your husband and call the collection agency to get to the bottom of your household's entanglement in his brother's finances. Your father-in-law's financial situation should be a priority for you and your husband. If you two have always been responsible with your finances, you may be able to influence and mentor your father-in-law to protect his dwindling resources.

If you don't tackle this now, it will fall into your lap eventually — and the situation will only grow more chaotic.

Amy is right that it's possible the husband/brother co-signed on a loan with his irresponsible sibling...which would mean they're all now in hot water. As she suggests, it would explain why he's unwilling to deal with the phone calls. However, if the couple has "always" been financially responsible, and this is the first time collection calls are coming to them (in other words, the husband doesn't have a history of slipping his brother cash behind his wife's back), it seems a bit of a harsh accusation to make...

The only loans I'm familiar with are federal school loans, so I don't know if this applies to other borrowing situations. But having just completed a bunch of exit interviews, I know that borrowers are required to give the names and contact information of "references" who will be contacted by the collection agency if the borrower defaults on their loan. I also know that these references don't have to give their permission or consent to be named on the form.

They're not co-signers--not responsible for the loan--but they will be contacted and unfortunately, suffer for the wrongdoing of others if the borrower can't be found or refuses to contact the lending agency to make arrangements to pay back the loan.

It's my (very uneducated) guess that this is what has happened....I hope the woman who wrote in will try to ask some open ended questions before assuming that her husband co-signed on a loan with his brother. And even more, I hope he didn't do that very foolish thing at all.

1-800-Debt-Free! (In which I read between the lines again)

I've been so obsessed with Carolyn lately (not to mention posting sparsely) that it seems like it's been a very long time since I've posted anything Amy-related, and that's too bad. So here's one--not a total crazy for a change (but they're so much fun!). Just one of those where I'm getting an odd feeling from the writer, and was surprised Amy didn't note it in her response. What do you think--am I too cynical, or does this woman's "opportunity" sound like a scam?

Dear Amy: My husband is a walking financial disaster. He doesn't listen to me. He thinks he knows it all. We have lost our home to foreclosure and are really struggling.
We have been married for 13 years and have three children. He has always been a stubborn person. He is not teachable and does not take anyone's advice. He has maintained his stance with handling our finances, and he stinks at it.
What do I do? I am a Christian, so divorce is not an option. Even the kids agree that something has to change.
We have an opportunity to become debt- free, but he is determined to drag us through unnecessary stress and strain! Pride is in his way.
What should I do?

— Hanging On in Alaska

Amy expresses sympathy and pushes the woman towards helpful resources: her clergy person, a recommended book, etc. It's tricky, because the woman is writing in for help for her family, but really needs to get through to her husband--a double whammy.

But doesn't it seem that, unless a wealthy family member is offering them a check (which actually is seeming more likely, now that I read this again and note the "pride is in his way" line), legitimate "opportunities" to get out of debt don't typically just materialize. Getting out of debt requires budgeting, planning, and lifestyle changes over the long term. Almost never is it simply a matter of opening the door to Opportunity's knock.

Although the writer insists that her husband manages the finances for the family and their downfall is largely his doing (which may be completely true), I wish Amy had urged her to really, really carefully evaluate the details of any get-rich-quick or refinancing scheme before signing on.

I wish them the best in these hard times! For their children's sake.

Speaking of which. I think I'd be a lot more sympathetic to this woman if not for this: Um, kids under the age of 13 are in no position to be evaluating the family's finances and weighing in on whether mom or dad f***ed it up. The parents should be protecting their kids from this struggle as much as it is reasonable to do so. This doesn't mean they should go on spending where they can't afford it in an attempt to hide their situation. It does mean that to the extent possible their family must remain a place where love and security rule the roost and where the childrens' basic needs are met. So that in the very sad and upsetting event of losing their house, the kids have not the slightest worry that they're also going to lose their family.

Whether it's the dad's fault or not, the mom is wrong wrong WRONG for getting the kids to "agree" with her that anything they're going through is the direct result of their father's pigheadedness and failure. How did that go, do you think?

Mom: If your father hadn't messed up, we wouldn't have had to move out of our house. Doesn't he do a bad job managing our family's money?

Child: I miss our backyard!

It's very, very sad that they lost their home. That's something that has happened wrongfully to too many people in the past few years. But it's also something that can be gotten over (sorry for the awkward grammar) and made right in time. Teaching your kids to blame and shame their dad is not so fixable.