Question
I have a question concerning two different types of obligation. The first is legal. What if after all is said and done, a probate court approves a final accounting and closes the estate. And now, remaining assets are allowed to be disbursed to only legatee. Perhaps after all legal motions are made, facts reviewed, hearing proceedings, etc., there is a decision made in the favor of the defendant. Let's say creditor's claims are denied; considered time barred and also past the SOL. Technically and legally, the executor is now not liable or responsible. Perhaps if things had been done differently or the new asset introduced earlier, there would have been a different outcome. But as they are, everything is absolutely legal (court approved), and having been represented by proper counsel. Would an individual be morally obligated to pay unpaid claims now, simply because he has the money to? Here's a good example. A person goes through bankruptcy. Not enough money to pay creditors,bankers, auto loan, mortgage,etc. Bankruptcy is approved. Bad credit report and horrible credit rating, but the matter is solved. Later the person comes into money or gets a really good job, and in time is really doing pretty good financially. Should he ignore his approved bankruptcy discharge and go back and pay everybody he once owed; even though legally he does not have to? Anyone care to voice an opinion? Thank you very much. Rudy
Answer
Attorneys rarely give authoritative opinions on non-legal issues, but I appreciate your inquiry.
People can and do satisfy "moral" obligations even when they have no strict legal obligation to do so. The examples you've provided -- like a debt of the decedent that is barred because a creditor missed a deadline or a debt discharged in bankruptcy -- show that sometimes a person feels morally obliged to "make good" on a prior promise even when s/he cannot be forced to. In the course of my practice I have some clients that make the decision to pay a debt even if they could legally avoid it by one means or another. (By contrast, others avoid paying even when they have a binding legal obligation to do so). I find it honorable when people want to keep their word or earlier obligation and so long as the person has full discretion over the funds, certainly they can pay someone back even when not forced to.
Recently I read an article that re-enforced the idea that there are several types of law -- the types of law that lawyers deal in (i.e., statutory law, constitutional law, common law) and what some call Natural Law -- a law our own law recognizes in this country "we hold these truths to be self evident... that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..." State constitutions often echo this thought. In other words, the paper law is man's best attempt through legislature and court to define the underlying Natural Law behind it. Viewing one's choices against not only the strict legal requirements of man-made law but also in light of the "law" behind the law seems to me a good place to start.
While not legal advice, I hope that the above post gives some response to your query.
