Topic: Is it possible to inherit a gambling debt? - page 12. (Read 1966 times)

The lender should always ask for collateral to anticipate things like this because he's in no control in real world situations.

If I am kid with that type of father, I will not take care of it. I have my own life, my own decision to make so as my father.

Even if they have an NDA contract, am I present by that time of signing? No. I will fight for my right that in no way I am associated with my father's decision and debts.

The agreement that was reached at the time the gambling loan was taken is what's going to determine if the children or the family will be liable for paying back those loans to the person their parents owed them to. 
 
If the loan was just taken verbally and there was no written agreement showing that if they are unable to pay back those loans, the person should either take a particular thing or the children will pay back the money, then I think they can be able to deny such unless there is substantial proof of that or the children know what their father is capable of and want to clear the loan no matter what; if not, there is a chance that they might not pay the loan if they don't want to.

Yes if the said contract between both parties is legal and the agreement is witnessed by both parties' respective attorneys. If not, they are just wasting their time. As per the case in our country, no one is punishable by law by having a debt and can't also ask the person's family or relatives to pay the loan on the borrower's behalf in case of the latter's passing away.

I'm not sure if the legal court honors the contract of the parties that are both individuals and was only signed by a written signature with no legal person to witness the loan agreement. In that case, the lender can't force the borrower's family to pay the loan in case of death.

In most laws, the debt of the father is only his debt and not of his kids. Unless the lender and the father had signed an agreement that if the father passes away, the debt will be continued and becomes the burden of his children.

But for me, what kind of father is that if you're going to inherit your debt to your kids? That's a crazy father to think of. Instead of inheriting will, good things and material posessions, you'll be leaving your kids in this world with a problem that you have taken.

So, that's it. If it's signed and made a contract that if the father can't continue pay the debt and after his death that must be passed onto the kids. Otherwise, the dead person is clear already with his debt.

Yes, it’s quite crazy the growing number of people who take out loans for the primary purpose of gambling with it. And a good portion of these folks end up having massive gambling debts and sometimes, end up kicking the bucket without paying off his debts.
Loans are majorly taken out and backed with a valid collateral that’s equal to or higher than the value of the loan. And just cause it’s termed a gambling debt, doesn’t mean it’s not a debt that should be settled.

If the individual has nothing of value that could be sod to recover monies owed at the time of passing away, then the debt would be written off as a bad debt. It happens.

On the time that you are still that dependent with your parents or simply you havent been able to make yourself made out some savings or having your own family then you wouldnt
really be thinking up on having those kind of separation kind of approach on things in life on which you would really be thinking about having your own property or possession on which
it would really be that separating you with those things that your father have owned. If it turns out that your father had died and made out your house or lots or other possession as collateral
then there's nothing you can do if those companies or lending platforms or similar things will really be getting those collaterals as form of assurance on which it would really be just that a
common approach to have. This is why if you are someone whose a father,husband,provider of a family then we should really be that wise on what we are dealing off with.

This is not about my family and this should be regardless of culture but we are talking about government law. If someone's father do not have any property or way to pay back the loan, there is nothing the loan company can do. That is why the companies that loan make sure that the person that want to borrow money has collateral or guarantor. If a son can be the guarantor is the only reason the son will pay, aside that he has nothing to pay.

The law of my country is clear on this issue: any debt contracted by person Z can only be charged to person Z, if person Z dies, so the debt ends immediately. The law of my country punishes and arrests anyone who goes about collecting a debt from other family members who do not pay off the debt and the family member who contracted the debt is dead, in which case the family members can file a complaint in the courts and that A person who keeps collecting debt will be arrested, this is because in my country the law only allows banks to be the only ones that grant loans, and it is a crime for a person without a license, without a bank, to give loans and charge interest, the central bank takes strict measures on these cases

As only banks are allowed to give loans in my country, banks comply with the laws that when the person who made the loan dies, the debt also ends. That's why the banks in my country have a maximum age limit that they won't give loans to, for example the banks in my country don't give loans to people over 65 years of age, because it's a big risk that the bank will be assuming, life expectancy in my country is not very high, and even if it were high, the banks know that at that age it is a risk, that is why banks in my country prefer to grant loans to people aged 25 up to 55 years of age. age and have a job in the government. I read in this thread that there are countries where when the person who owed the debt dies then other relatives must pay the debt, this is a huge senseless absurdity

Alot of things are very possible these days because when money is involved, people will go any length to recover it or get it. That's just how the world is today.
I don't know how possible it is to inherit a gambling debt, but I know that there must first be a disparity in the kind of scenario that plays out, be it online or offline  gambling.

Offline gambling where the gambler has to go to a physical centre to gamble and has built a reputation to the point that they can gamble with loans afforded them by the gambling houses is quite different from online option, where the player takes out a loan to gamble.

As long as it's a loan, the people who gave out such loan will seek different approach to recover their funds even after the demise of the debtor, so long as the debtor did well to drop accurate details of his/her kin or that of a  guarantor or guardian.

Borrowing cash to gamble is like playing a dangerous game of Jenga with your family's future. One wrong move, and everything comes crashing down. Even if there's a legal agreement, leaving your loved ones with a mountain of debt after you're gone is a major bummer, homie.

Gambling can be tricky, especially for folks who struggle with addiction. It's easy to lose track of reality and make choices that hurt the ones you care about. Imagine if your family had to struggle because you took a bad bet? Not cool, right? Leaving them with debt is like dropping a giant anchor on their boat, making it super tough to sail smoothly through life.

Addiction is a real thing, and gambling can be a powerful trigger. If you're feeling like you can't control your gambling, it's crucial to reach out for help, not just for yourself, but for your family too.

You should refer to each country's legal process regarding loans.

There should always be an agreement between the lender and the borrower, that was legally and officially signed, and that includes what should be the necessary actions in situations like death, accident, inability to pay the loan, collateral, and anything.


If the lender, either a person or a company, is not running their operation legally and just running the business to take advantage of high interest they are asking for their borrowers they can't take legal action in the law court. In the event of the lender passing away, they can't pass the responsibility of the original lender to their families.

Here in my country, when a man is owing and he passes on, the family of the man will have to pay the dept, there is no two ways about it, and there is absolutely nothing to talk over in a law court, this actually have nothing to do with the law.
I remember when my father passed in 2020, when we were about to bury him, the church stopped us, said he was owing them, and that we the children must pay his dept before they can allow us bury his remains, the whole bill was calculated and we had no choice but to pay it all before they allowed us bury his corpse.

Now, this same scenario can be applied to gambling as well, if a gambler is oweing for what ever reason, maybe he borrowed the money and used it for gambling, or he already used all his money for gambling and had to borrow to sort out important things he should have used his money for, and unfortunately, he passes on before he could repay the borrowed money, morally and legally, it's the families responsibility to pay that money, as long as the lender wants the money back.

I agree with you. Having collateral and a guarantor is a must-meet requirement before getting any loan and this simply prevents the crisis which is likely to arise by a father failing to pay off debt before his demise. Lenders are aware of the risk involved in lending money and that is why a collateral and a guarantor are imperative to mitigate the risk associated with lending money. In case the borrower defaults on the loan, the lender can seize the collateral to recover the amount owed. For instance, I remember using my TV as collateral to get a loan and when I couldn`t pay back the loan within a stipulated time, the TV was sold by the lender to recover his money. This is a very common practice and it has saved lenders the stress of looking for a debtor or what pays when the borrower is gone.

If a borrower has a creditworthy guarantor, the guarantor will pay the loan if the borrower defaults because being a guarantor automatically makes you part of the loan agreement. This reduces the lender’s financial risk and increases the likelihood of recovering the borrowed funds. I story surfaced online where a son without the notice of his father took a loan and made his father a guarantor when he defaulted his father was asked to pay the loan. Even if the money was used for gambling, it is nobody`s concern hence, it will be recovered by this measures. A loan is a loan regardless of what it was used for.

IMO children that pays the dept of their families members who toke dept from people are the children of those who's family members that collected the dept died at early age and it's bad to keep problems behind for your families to inherit instead of living something important for them. The worst part is when the deptor has sold all his or her properties before they passed away. It's bad and if I am the family of such person I will not pay because he didn't collet the dept to invest and lose rather he collected the dept to gamble. Why I would pay if he invest and lose is because if the investment turn for good everyone will benefit from it.

Well, I think I've gotten the point from what you said. I once heard a story about someone who took out a loan from an online application and then he died (he died not because of the burden of his debt). Some time after he died, his family received a threatening message from the DC (Debt Collector) who said the family had to pay their debts even though the debt taker had died. They received threats after threats continuously to the point that rumors about the family were spread online which made the family really threatened. I only know the story briefly, I don't know what has happened to the family now. But this is a really serious issue about inheriting debt.

I have not seing where someone's debt is inherited to family members. I think debts are personal and it has nothing to do with other people or family members. I think from where I come from,  the lender has no right to demand debt from family members of debtors. If the debtor is unable to pay back the money it is either hr/she will be charged  to court , doing this the debtor family can decide on their own to clear the debt or not, or the debtor can look for other means of paying the debt.

I think if the handles this as a serious case this is when it can affect members of the family to think of how to solve the problems , but if the lender does not do anything about the money or take it serious if time is not taking the lender may not get back the money because i don't think addicted gamblers will be willing to pay debts.

Just like you said, I've also experienced similar story of a debt that was inherited and paid by family members after the person's demise. But I think that's one of the most frustrating things a bereaved family should go through and would suggest that the international law authorities do something to change such policies. For someone to be indebted in gambling, it simply means that the person was irresponsible in it and telling his family members to pay for his irresponsibility when he's no more doesn't sit well with me. Inheritance of gambling debt is absolutely possible possible must be stopped if you ask me

This probably depends on the country, local laws and loan agreement.

In my country I know of the following cases. If the borrower has paid for insurance, then the debt doesn't apply to relatives and children. Without insurance, accordingly, debt obligations for an unpaid loan are assigned to the immediate family.

These are not the most pleasant financial and legal moments. From the point of view of moral standards, the actions of an adult (debts) should not extend to other people. Just like you can’t punish someone else for committing crimes. The culprit must personally bear the responsibility and burden of repaying the debts. And no one else.

I'm looking into this response, and it's not strange that the debt clears off once the person passes, but the owner of the money, may not be satisfied with the ill treatment. However, losing a person is painful to the family and adding to the grieve, with a debt can put the family in a more severe pain, especially when the money available is not enough to handle the debt. The only good thing is avoiding this, and keeping our reputations clean for the family. Your environment is quite conducive for allowing such a rule. At least, the family knows nothing about the activity, and the funds wasn't used to help the growth of the family, instead the player used it on gambling.

If the heir has to pay off the loan, it should be based on the financial capacity of the person, and how prepared he is regarding the money. That is, he's aware of the loan before the passing on of his gambling dad. Bringing up the issue immediately after the passing on of the debtor is quite very wrong. I think the lender should be visiting the home of the man while he was alive to inform them about the dispute between him and their father.  

It will be very painful to pay such debt because was not beneficial to the family. If it is a verified debt, I will have to arrange with my siblings and see how we can pay the debt because we would have enjoyed his estate together if he had one. But I doubt if a gambler will have an estate because he would have gambled them all before going to borrow.


There is some tradition that mandates that people ensure they pay their debt before they die. The children or heirs are obliged to pay the debt in case someone dies without paying. This would be simple if the person was rich and left behind an estate. In law, nobody will receive anything from the estate until all deaths are paid especially if there is a signed agreement. But most people die poor and put their heirs in debt. If an indebted gambler dies without leaving behind any money or property, what will his heirs do?