Borrowing 100k and paying it to someone then declaring bankruptcy
This is fraud and could lead to jail time. The vast majority of people cannot obtain such loans without collateral and one would have to have a healthy income and good credit to obtain that kind of loan to purchase something secured by a valuable asset, such as a home. Has this been done before?  Yes, despite it being the US, you may find this article interesting.     Hopefully, you see how the intent of this hypothetical situation is stealing. 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. Note that in the UK at least this scam - not so dissimilar from what you propose - seems be perfectly legal behaviour: Evidence to date is that both of you can expect to walk away without much consequence. This sounds like a crazy idea, but in reality people don't make the wisest decisions when considering bankruptcy in Australia.  My suggestion would be to get some advice from an insolvency specialist.
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. A $100K house and $100K are not equivalent assets. Here's a hypothetical... You and I both work for the same company, and both get a $100K bonus (yes, I said it's hypothetical). You decide to use the $100K to pay off your house. I put the money in the bank. Six months later, our company lays both of us off. I have $100K in the bank. I can last for quite a while with that much money in the bank. You have a house, but you can't get a mortgage or home equity loan, because you don't have a job. The only way you can access the money is by selling the house, which requires you to pay money to a real estate agent and perhaps taxes, and leaves you looking for a place to live. That assumes there isn't something systemic going on - like the credit crash - and there is credit available for somebody else to buy your house. "First, when a debt collector says, ""It's to your advantage to give me money now"", I'd take that with a grain of salt. My ex-wife declared bankruptcy and when debt collectors couldn't find her, they somehow tracked me down and told me that I should tell her that it would be to her advantage to pay off this debt before the bankruptcy went through. That was total nonsense of course. The whole point of bankruptcy is to not have to pay the debt. Why would you pay it just before it was wiped off the books? (Now that I think of it, I'm surprised that they didn't tell me that I should pay her debts.) As others have noted, this would be controlled by state law. But in general, when someone dies any debts are payed from the assets of the estate, and then whatever is left goes to the heirs. If nothing is left or the debts exceed the assets, then the heirs get nothing, but they don't have to pay somebody else's debts. I don't see how you could ""put the house under your name"". If he left the house to you in his will, then after any debts are settled in accordance with state law, the house would transfer to you. But you can't just decide to put the house in your name outside of the legal inheritance process. If you could, then people could undermine a will at any time by just deciding to take an asset left to someone else and ""put it in their name"". Or as in this case, people could undermine the rights of creditors by transferring all assets to themselves before debts were paid. Even if there's some provision in your state for changing the name on a deed prior to probate to facilitate getting mortgages and taxes paid or whatever, I would be quite surprised if this allowed you to shelter assets from legitimate creditors. It would be a gaping loophole in inheritance law. Frankly, if your father's debts are more than the value of his assets, including the value of the house, I suspect you will not be able to keep the house. It will be sold to pay off the creditors. I would certainly talk to a lawyer about this as there might be some provision in the law that you can take advantage of. I'll gladly yield on this point to anyone with specific knowledge of New Jersey inheritance law." I dunno.  Borrow $65,000 with zero collateral, string the lender along for 20+ years, then die?  Sounds like a great decision to me.  I wonder why a bank would ever take the other end of that lemon of a deal?  Oh, right... "Without all the details it's hard to tell what options you may have, but none of them are good.  When you cosign you are saying that, you believe the primary signer will make good on the loan, but that if he doesn't you will. You are 100% responsible for this debt. As such, there are some actions you can take. First, really try to stress to your friend, that they need to get you outta this loan. Urge them to re-finance with out you if they can. Next look for ""better"" ways of defaulting on the loan and take them. Depending on what the loan is for you could deed-in-lue or short sale. You may just have to admit default. If you work with the bank, and try not to drag out the process, you will likely end up in a better place down the line.  Also of importance is ownership. If you pay the loan, do you get ownership of the thing the loan was secured against? Usually not, but working with an attorney and the bank, maybe. For example, if it's a car, can the ""friend"" sign over the car to you, then you sell it, and reduce your debt.  Basically as a cosigner, you have some rights, but you have all the responsibilities. You need to talk to an attorney and possibly the bank, and see what your options are. At this point, if you think the friend is not that much of a friend anymore, it's time to make sure that any conversation you have with them is recorded in email, or on paper." Trying to forcefully reclaim the money will ruin the relationship.  In general it's bad practice to loan money to family. Once the loan is taken out, Chase would turn around and sell that debt to others, getting all their money upfront and leaving both the person who took the loan out and the new creditor holding the bag.  I worked for a company that used to do this with loans for other things.  They company was Norvergence and were complete scumbags. "I am not sure how anyone is answering this unless they know what the loan was for.  For instance if it is for a house you can put a lien on the house.  If it is for the car in most states you can take over ownership of it.   Point being is that you need to go after the asset.   If there is no asset you need to go after you ""friend"".  Again we need more specifics to determine the best course of action which could range from you suing and garnishing wages from your friend to going to small claims court.  Part of this process is also getting a hold of the lending institution.  By letting them know what is going on they may be able to help you - they are good at tracking people down for free. Also the lender may be able to give you options.  For example if it is for a car a bank may help you clear this out if you get the car back plus penalty.  If a car is not in the red on the loan and it is in good condition the bank turns a profit on the default.  If they can recover it for free they will be willing to work with you.  I worked in repo when younger and on more than a few occasions we had the cosigner helping.  It went down like this... Co-signer gets pissed like you and calls bank, bank works out a plan and tells cosigner to default, cosigner defaults, banks gives cosigner rights to repo vehicle, cosigner helps or actually repos vehicle, bank gets car back, bank inspects car, bank asks cosigner for X amount (sometimes nothing but not usually), cosigner pays X, bank does not hit cosigners credit, bank releases loan and sells car.  I am writing this like it is easy but it really requires that asset is still in good condition, that cosigner can get to the asset, and that the ""friend"" still is around and trusts cosigner.  I have seen more than a few cosigners promise to deliver and come up short and couple conspiring with the ""friend"".   I basically think most of the advice you have gotten so far is crap and you haven't provided enough info to give perfect advice.  Seeking a lawyer is a joke.  Going after a fleeing party could eat up 40-50 billable hours.  It isn't like you are suing a business or something.  The lawyer could cost as much as repaying the loan - and most lawyers will act like it is a snap of their fingers until they have bled you dry - just really unsound advice. For the most part I would suggest talking to the bank and defaulting but again need 100% of the details.   The other part is cosigning the loan.  Why the hell would you cosign a loan for a friend?  Most parents won't cosign a loan for their own kids.  And if you are cosigning a loan, you write up a simple contract and make the non-payment penalties extremely costly for your friend.  I have seen simple contracts that include 30% interests rates that were upheld by courts." "If you're looking for an analogy or exercise, I saw a personal finance show that had people climb stairs, with the debt as weight. Every flight of stairs more ""interest"" and loans to cover income gaps have to be added to the total debt they carry up the stairs. Can't find the video online though. But I think you need to ask your brother what he thinks his problem is, that will be solved with more loans. It's likely that your brother's problem can't be solved with advice. Since he's not spending rationally, rational arguments have no sway. I suspect he'll tell you his problem is one or two angry creditors, perhaps even ones you don't know about, rather than a fundamental imbalance between income and expenses. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, or moving weights from one backpack compartment to another, doesn't solve the underlying problems. Whatever you do, another loan from you should be off the table. He's an adult now, with problems the size of which you can't help with. We both know how his story ends: all creditors cut him off, and he's in court over garnished wages and creditors fighting over his assets. Reality is the only argument that will have any sway. He's far too personally invested in his scheme to admit defeat, which is why neither words not images nor moving pictures will help him with this learning disability." Get a Bankrupsy lawyer. They'll tell you to stop paying the bills and use the money to pay their fee. Yes... You do need to pay in advance.   I can tell you honestly that it was the best thing that ever happened to me.   Think about it this way... When you loan someone moneyyou're placing a bet that they'll pay you back. You try to keep the dos in your favor by using credit ratings etc but sometimes you win and sometimes you lose that bet. It's nothing personal. It's business.   The casino doesn't feel bad when you lose your bets and your money and you don't expect them to. The person placing the bet knows what they're doing and knows all about the risks, etc. it's a calculated risk. Again... It's just business and it's nothing personal.   It's also not nesessairly a failure. Depending on the situation... Bankrupsy is an excellent business decision. Big business do it all the time.   Sometimes bankruptcy is a very smart decision and not going bankrupt is the worst decision you can make.   My only regret with my own bankruptcy is that I didn't do it sooner. I could have saved the family years of unnecessary hardship and I could have gotten it over with much sooner.   Don't be emotional. Be smart and do the smart thing. "Exactly it. I declared bankruptcy over 7 years ago. I was in a bad situation - I was laid off, the jobs in Salt Lake dried up after the Olympics, everything was in the crapper.  I found new work - in California. Went off and lived there alone for six months while my wife and children stayed behind. We used all of our savings keeping up on the mortgage, paying bills - and living like paupers. Once my wife came down, we knew we couldn't afford a place in CA *and* our home, so we rented it out.  To people who didn't pay their rent for six months, and we were so far away we couldn't just fly back to make it happen. And my wife was pregnant this whole time.  Finally, because of my wife, we gave in. And I felt awful. I had failed my family, I had failed my wife - and I felt like I had failed myself. I remember being so ashamed I told *no one* for almost 6 years.  Until I found out I wasn't the only one. Until I had close friends tell me of their troubles. I hadn't been overly irresponsible, I hadn't been buying up big TVs and junk. I was just trying to make a living, did good work - and just got caught up in bad luck.  But the shame didn't go away. And it's only now, when I know more, when I see companies declare bankruptcy, or very wealthy people do so, that I realize that yeah - I have to take care of my shit, and I do everything I can for that. But at the same time, if bad stuff happens, I shouldn't spend my life beating up on myself because I had ""shit happen.""   Shit happens. Everybody should have a second chance to try again. Learn from the mistakes you made, plan better if you can, and realize that the best laid plans of might and men oft go awry. Try again, and hopefully it'll work out better next time." I have an example that may be interesting for your question. My grandfather had a tennis club around 35 years ago, and some other businesses. Some investments went bad and he was heading for bankruptcy due to the tennis club's expensive payments. So he asked to renegotiate a variable rate rather than a fixed rate, even though the interest rates were going up, not down. The idea was that if the current situation is going to bankrupt you, taking a chance might be better. As an analogy, if you can't swim and you'll drown in 6 feet of water, it doesn't matter that you're taking the risk to go deeper. You might have to take that chance to survive. He did keep the tennis club in the end but that's irrelevant here. For student loans, if I'm not mistaken, declaring bankruptcy doesn't free you of all their debt, so it may not be applicable.  And this situation is when renegotiating, not when negotiating the first time. because obviously if you're in trouble financially, taking a loan you know you can't repay is suicide. * Absolutely agree with /u/IsAnAlpaca  * You /must/ not agree to this without seeing his balance sheet. * That means assets and liabilities, but also ask for the last 12 months' cash flow * Inability or unwillingness to provide any of those things is a HUGE no-go red flag. I had a similar situation, except the debtor had no connection to us whatsoever, other than holding our phone number previously. We tried going through channels to deal with it, and had no success. At the end of the day, I was very abusive to the people calling, and forwarded the number to a very irritating destination. "Somehow I just stumbled onto this thread...  &gt; You essentially robbed the person holding the debt (since you promised to pay it off).   Depends on leverage, with fractional reserve lending.  Banks are permitted to loan out 30x their actual assets, or more.  If I have $1 but can loan out $30, and anything more than $1 gets paid back, I haven't lost any money.  In addition, I can write off the amount defaulted, *and the government will pay me back* for certain types of loans.  With student loans, since they are almost impossible to discharge, gov't will pursue the borrower for years and decades, and ultimately collect more interest.  Here is an article on it:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704723104576061953842079760.html  &gt; According to Kantrowitz, the government stands to earn $2,010.44 more in interest from a $10,000 loan that defaulted than if it had been paid in full over a 20-year term, and $6,522.00 more than if it had been paid back in 10 years. Alan Collinge, founder of borrowers' rights advocacy Student Loan Justice, said the high recovery rates provide a ""perverted incentive"" for the government to allow loans to go into default. Kantrowitz estimates the recovery rate would need to fall to below 50% in order for default prevention efforts to become more lucrative than defaults themselves.   Not to mention:  http://studentloanjustice.org/defaults-making-money.html  &gt; So essentially, the Department is given a choice:  Either do nothing and get nothing, or outlay cash with the knowledge that this outlay will realize a 22 percent return, ultimately (minus the governments cost of money and collection costs).  From this perspective, it is clear that based solely on financial motivations, and without specific detailed knowledge of the loan (i.e. borrower characteristics, etc.), the chooser would clearly favor the default scenario,  for not only the  return, but perhaps the potential savings in subsidy payment as well,     And don't forget the penalties accruing to the person defaulting; they will probably have to move out of the country in order to escape collection.  And let's factor in the huge ROI the lender sees by creating an indentured servant class.  Plus, the gov't will issue as much currency as it wants, to make *itself* whole.  And how much of a loss IS the loss, when the whole of the loan amount went right back into the local economy, paying professors, janitors, landlords, grocery stores, etc.?  And don't forget all THOSE taxes (income and sale) that the gov't collects.  Government will collect ~30%-50% of the loan immediately as income and sales tax, plus a portion of it every time the money changes hands (I pay income tax, then use some of my after-tax money to pay you for a product or service, and you still have to pay tax on that money, and so on).  So it's more complicated than having ""robbed the person holding the debt"".  Banks at 30x leverage don't lose money as long as they get back 1/30th of the total amount lent out, including interest, fees, and penalties, before considering write-offs and government repayment.  In fact, the point of over-leverage is so you CAN make loans that have risk attached.  If you could only lend what you actually had, you would have to stay away from anything risky because it would be too easy to lose money.  Having virtual $ to bet means you can serve market segments that have higher risk.  This makes MORE money for the banks, that's why they do it.  They are already playing with funny money, so they don't lose any even if you default and move to another country.  And the money you ""spent"" has also made its way back to them in various amounts, such as your professor's mortgage payments, auto loan, etc.  Your taking on debt already helped the bank get its OTHER loans repaid.  So, roughly speaking, if you took out $90,000 and $3,000 of that made its way back to the bank through various means, they haven't lost any money, because it only cost them $3,000 actual dollars in the first place."