Can banks deny that you've paid your loan?
Maybe there's more to this story, because as written, your sister seems, well, a little irrational. Is it possible that the bank will try to cheat you and demand that you pay a loan again that you've already paid off? Or maybe not deliberately cheat you, but make a mistake and lose track of the fact that you paid? Sure, it's POSSIBLE. But if you're going to agonize about that, what about all the other possible ways that someone could cheat you? What if you go to a store, hand over your cash for the purchase, and then the clerk insists that you never gave him any cash? What if you buy a car and it turns out to be stolen? What if you buy insurance and when you have a claim the insurance company refuses to pay? What if someone you've never met or even heard of before suddenly claims that you are the father of her baby and demands child support? Etc etc. Realistically, banks are fanatical about record-keeping. Their business is pretty much all about record-keeping. Mistakes like this are very rare. And a big business like a bank is unlikely to blatantly cheat you. They can and do make millions of dollars legally. Why should they break the law and risk paying huge fines and going to prison for a few hundred dollars? They may give you a lousy deal, like charge you outrageous overdraft fees and pay piddling interest on your deposit, but they're not going to lie about how much you owe. They just don't. I suggest that you not live your life in fear of all the might-be's. Take reasonable steps to protect yourself and get on with it. Read contracts before you sign, even if the other person gets impatient while you sit there reading. ESPECIALLY if the other person insists that you sign without reading. When you pay off a loan, you should get a piece of paper from the bank saying the loan has been paid. Stuff this piece of paper in a filing cabinet and keep it for years and years. Get a copy of your credit report periodically and make sure that there are no errors on it, like incorrect loan balances. I check mine once every year or two. Some people advise checking it every couple of months. It all depends how nervous you are and how much time you want to spend on it. Then get on with your life. Has your sister had some bad experience with loans in the past? Or has she never borrowed money and she's just confused about how it works? That's why I wonder if there's more to the story, if there's some basis for her fears. Yes, if their record keeping is faulty or failed. It is best to keep all records of repayment.  Incomplete records such as signing for a loan yet no repayment receipt can be at least a headache and at most expensive. The most important document is a record of 0 balance then there is nothing that the courts will allow creditors to collect if their records are faulty. If the loan is for a car, or mortgage there is specific paperwork that is processed when the loan payments have been completed. For other types of loans ask the lender, what will they give you regarding the payoff of the loan. Keep this paperwork, in hard copy and electronic form forever.
"Never forget that student lenders and their collection agencies are dangerous and clever predators, and you, the student borrower, are their legal prey. They look at you and think, ""food."" My friend said she never pays her student loans and nothing has happened.  She's wrong. Something has happened. She just doesn't know about it yet. Each unpaid bill, with penalties, has been added to the balance of her loan.  Now she owes that money also. And she owes interest on it. That balance is probably building up very fast indeed. She's playing right into the hands of her student lender. They are smiling about this. When the balance gets large enough to make it worthwhile, her student lender will retain an aggressive collection agency to recover the entire balance. The agency will come after her in court, and they are likely to win.  If your friend lives in the US, she'll discover that she can't declare bankruptcy to escape this. She has the bankruptcy ""reform"" act of 2006, passed during the Bush 43 regime, to thank for this. A court judgement against her will make it harder for her to find a job and even a spouse. I'm not saying this is right or just. I believe it is wrong and unjust to make university graduates into debt slaves. But it is true. As for being paid under the table, I hope your friend intends on dying rather than retiring when she no longer can work due to age. If she's paid under the table she will not be eligible for social security payments.  You need sixteen calendar quarters of social security credit to be eligible for payments.  I know somebody like this. It's a hell of a way to live, especially on weekends when the local church feeding programs don't operate.  Paying people under the table ought to be a felony for the business owner." I think in such situations a good rule of thumb may be - if you are asked to pay significant sums of money upfront before anything is done, stop and ask yourself, what would you do if they don't do what they promised? They know who you are, but usually most you know is a company name and phone number. Both can disappear in a minute and what are you left with?  If they said they'd pay off the debt and issue the new loan - fine, let them do it and then you pay them. If they insist on having money upfront without delivering anything - unless it's a very big and known and established company you probably better off not doing it. Either it's a scam or in the minuscule chance they are legit you still risking too much - you're giving money and not getting anything in return. The reason the loan amount is showing is because it is a default - the fact that you live in a non-recourse state doesn't change the fact that a loan obligation that had your name on it was defaulted upon. I don't think there is much you can do now given that your name was still on the mortgages. "If you take a loan, you make a contract with your lender, let's call them ""bank"" (even if it might not be a real bank).  This loan contract contains an agreed-upon way of paying back the loan.  Both sides agreed upon these conditions.  Any change of it (like paying back early) needs the consent of both sides.  So, in general, no, you cannot just pay back everything earlier unless the other side accepts this change of the contract. Consider it from the bank's point of view:  They want to earn money by getting the interest you have to pay when you pay back everything nice and slowly.  It is their business.  They plan on these expected revenues etc. So if, for whatever reason, you have to pay back the whole remaining loan at once, you create a revenue loss for the bank and are liable for this financial damage.  In German the term for this is ""Vorfälligkeitsentschädigung"" which translates to ""prepayment penalty"" or ""acceleration fee"".  You just have to pay it, so in the end you come out like if you were paying back the loan in the agreed-upon fashion. However, many loan contracts contain the option to pay back early at specific points in time in specific amounts and under specific conditions." "If the answer were ""no,"" you still found the 'black swan' type exception that proves the answer to be ""yes,"" right? My experience is this - again just my experience, my bank - When by balance goes below $10, I have the account trigger an email. I wrote a check I forgot to register and subtract, so the email was sent and the account balance in fact showed negative. I transferred to cover the check and the next day, there was a history that didn't go negative, the evening deposit was credited prior to check clearing.  I set up my bills on line. I set a transfer in advance for the same dollar amount as a bill that was due, e.g. $1000 transfer for a $1000 bill. I woke up to an email, and the account showed the bill was paid prior to the transfer. So one line showed going -$900, and the next line +$100 after transfer. Even though it's the same online process. Again, the next day the history re-ordered to look like I was never negative. But even on a day I know I'm having payments issued, I can never just ignore that email.  The first time this happened, I asked the bank, and they said if the negative went until the next day, I'd get an overdraft/short balance notice.  This is a situation to ask your bank how they handle this." This is called a fraudulent conveyance because its purpose is to prevent a creditor from getting repaid. It is subject to claw back under US law, which is a fancy way of saying that your friend will have to pay the bank back. Most jurisdictions have similar laws. It is probably a crime as well, but that varies by jurisdiction. A bank is putting money on the line for you when they loan you money, which is not something they have to do. Not telling them what you intend to do with the money they are giving you, when asked, is fraud, which if you are caught will put you into very deep trouble. My bank did fine the first couple years of handling my escrow, then out of the blue, totally messed it up and cost me a lot of time straightening it all out with them as well as straightening out with my taxing authority.  I told them to send me the balance of the escrow and cancel it, that I would handle it from then on and they did.  There was a qualification that I met, I just can't remember what that was. I too have a lot of equity and was never late on a payment.  I also manage it via direct deposit from my paychecks into interest bearing accounts. "Not really. Unless you can show that there was an intent for you to have the money repaid (basically - a written loan agreement), no court will accept your claim.  This is one of the situations you can see frequently on ""Judge Judy"" and such, and the decision is always the same: unless there's a written (or you convince the judge about a verbal) agreement that it is a loan - it is a gift." Send a well-documented payment to the original creditor.  Do it in such a way that you would have the ability to prove that you sent a payment if they reject it.  Should they reject it, demonstrate that to the credit reporting bureaus. Apart from the reasons currently given (which have to do with personal relations), wouldn't a good reason to take the loan from the bank be to build up a credit history and/or improve your credit score? IMO they were just being dicks.  I don't know if they are required to provide the payoff amount, but they should be able to at any point in time.  edit: I have mortgage experience.  I didn't see this too often, but borrowers sometimes payoff/include other debts on refis.  This requires a payoff statement from their creditors.  I've never heard of a closing getting pushed back to the next month due to a creditor not being able to provide the payoff. Maybe. As other have said, doing this deliberately is fraud, but almost impossible to prove unless you've lied on the loan documents or discussed your plans with witnesses. The lender may consider negotiating a partial write-down of the loan, but that is far from their only option. Depending on the details of the loan agreement they may be able to garnish your wages, seize your property, or walk into your business with a sheriffs' deputy and empty your cash register. They may also be able to add their costs for recovering the money to your debt. This does sound a bit implausible, even if it is true it is pretty grossly irresponsible and you probably shouldn't just let it slide... However there is no real benefit in wading in with accusations, I suspect that the most likely scenario is that your tenet simply didn't have the money and was looking for a way to delay payment. This may well not be particularly malicious towards you, they may just be unable to pay and need a bit of room to maneuver.  In this case the wise thing is to challenge them but without forcing them to admit that they might have lied, perhaps by suggesting that they might have been mistaken about dropping off the money but it's no big deal and negotiate a resolution. In these situations where it is one persons word against another giving them the opportunity to save face often pays off.  Equally you want to make it absolutely clear that putting a wad of cash in your mailbox is not an acceptable way to pay. "I can't think of any conceivable circumstance in which the banker's advice would be true. (edit: Actually, yes I can, but things haven't worked that way since 1899 so his information is a little stale. Credit bureaus got their start by only reporting information about bad debtors.) The bureaus only store on your file what gets reported to them by the institution who extended you the credit. This reporting tends to happen at 30, 60 or 90-day intervals, depending on the contract the bureau has with that institution. All credit accounts are ""real"" from the day you open them. I suspect the banker might be under the misguided impression the account doesn't show up on your report (become ""real"") until you miss a payment, which forces the institution to report it, but this is incorrect-- the institution won't report it until the 30-day mark at the earliest, whether or not you miss a payment or pay it in full. The cynic in me suspects this banker might give customers such advice to sabotage their credit so he can sell them higher-interest loans. UDAAP laws were created for a reason."