Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
'It's crazy': Chase forgiving all debt owed by its Canada credit card customers (cbc.ca)
184 points by electriclove 9 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 118 comments





My guess: when Chase says "we felt it was a better decision for all parties" they mean "we realized we broke some kind of law without anybody noticing, and selling the debts to collections could turn up evidence of that in future litigation"

A more likely scenario is that the total outstanding debt was small enough that the positive PR + tax write-offs were bigger than getting pennies from a collections agency.

Getting pennies and writing off the rest would be better than writing off the whole amount.

I don’t how much the positive PR is worth, or how much additional costs do they eliminate by renouncing to recover anything. But arguments of the “losing money is good for companies because they recover a small part of it as tax savings” kind do not make a lot of sense in general.


Tax write-offs are profits that were never made in the first place. It's not some sort of a tax credit. The reason you pay less taxes is because you didn't make a (or made less) profit.

You are talking about losses. Unpaid debts/invoices is its own category, and can definitely be deducted (see https://www.irs.gov/publications/p535#idm140359415938416).

Because they are losses.

Anyone see the notional amount of the total write down?

Couldn't find it in the article anywhere.


This is not a good guess.

Chase announced they were closing these accounts in April 2018, and tried to have them closed by March 2018.

The reason was that Chase was getting out of it's relationship with J.P. Morgan.

It's now over a year later, and due to contractual obligations can't legally force people to pay their full balances all at once.

Other than continuing their relationship with J.P Morgan until all cardholders payed off their balances in full, this was the only other option.


> getting out of it's (sic) relationship with J.P. Morgan

Huh? They're the same company, "JPMorgan Chase & Co."

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/JPM


It was getting out of the Canadian credit card market, not it's relationship with JPMorgan (which is the same company).

Meh, someone did the math and calculated that standing up an organization that obey all the financial laws in order to collect money from a bunch of people who can barely pay the minimum payment probably isn't worth it.

If they write off this debt, they probably also get to claim a deduction somewhere on money that they would never be able to collect.

(At one point, one of these ilk of companies offered my grandfather the "privilege" of taking a lump sum settlement for his black lung payments. I calculated what principal I expected they needed to reserve to provide his payments, discounted it slightly and hoped that they wanted rid of the accounting and maintenance in order to give him the lump sum. Alas, they weren't desperate enough to get him off the books and we never heard from them again.)


A personal pet peeve of mine is misunderstandings of how taxes work. I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding, but I do want to clarify.

They can certainly take a deduction for some money they wouldn't be able to collect successfully. But they can deduct the entire balance now, rather than writing off small portions over the next so many years. Of course, they're simply not getting taxed on money they didn't earn (since it's a deduction, not a credit).

The mathematically optimal solution is certainly not to write everything off. They could have sold it to a debt collection company and made a larger profit.


Why do you assume selling the debt would be profitable? It depends on the price.

I think in this case "larger profit" doesn't mean profitable, it means "less magnitude of negative profit".

I guess the moral of the story is: reject the first offer and see if they'll come back for more or not, because running any tabulations.

It's concerning because ultimately that money came out of the bank's profits. The profits where derived from interest on loans which were paid off by responsible individuals. This seems like part of a global trend of individuals being rewarded for being economic parasites.

Wouldn't be the first time - I had a bank write off a debt a few weeks after they called me at 5am to harangue me about the debt, while I was living in California.

I had a few hundred dollars (so not a huge debt) written off, without me doing anything. The debt was due to charges (and interest on those charges) applied on a dormant account. The thing is, I didn't know that the charges were accumulating or I would have closed the account. If they had told me, eg, after 6 months or so (seems like a reasonable amount of time to give), I would have paid the $40 or whatever and closed the account. Instead they let the charges accumulate for five years before feeling the need to contact me. So, yeah, I wasn't going to pay that! I was planning on offering to pay whatever the amount would have been after 6 months but then I got a letter stating that they won't pursue the matter. Maybe they realised how ridiculous it was that they didn't contact me sooner.

I wonder did it affect my credit rating, but where I am, credit ratings really aren't all that important compared to the US (and reset over a few years anyway).


Yep, that's a violation of the FDPCA. It was probably more cost effective for them to write it off than to have to deal with you litigating.

Nitpick: It’s the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, so FDCPA

more likely the cost of operating in another country to collect minimum payments for n+ years is higher than the value of the debt.

From what I understand it's not much money as these cards have been unavailable for a year.

But why would they sell it to collections if people continue paying the minimums?

It sounds like Chase wants out of Canada. If they sell or discharge the debt, they can extinguish their business. Discharging the debt probably gets them to the end faster, since there will be less requests for records going forward, and it should be reasonable to destroy the records sooner in that case.

I don't know how Canada does it, but a lot of those smiles would change at least a little bit in the US when they get a 1099-C in February and realize the IRS counts debt forgiveness as taxable lump-sum income.

Seems logical to me: the bank essentially gave you a loan and then said, well you don’t need to pay us back. So they really gave you a certain amount of money. Isn’t that what they call income?

Not disagreeing, but calling out that if you get a significant lump sum you can easily set aside x% for taxes, but if you get the same amount of debt forgiven there's no pot to "set aside" from. You need to come up with that money now* from your existing money which can be challenging if the forgiven amount was significant.

* Granted, you can usually arrange to pay a large tax bill over time, but that is basically debt which you'll be annoyed/surprised to find yourself back in...


Yikes. Nope, I live in Canada and I had a few tens of thousands in debt forgiven. Definitely didn't have to pay taxes on it. That would be absolutely crazy and would have driven me to bankruptcy!

Not judging you at all, I promise. I found it ironically funny that forgiving debt could lead someone into bankruptcy. Talk about a win-win situation.

Yep. In my case we were overjoyed having finally worked out a deal with the bank, only to discover that now I was in debt to the IRS instead of the bank :'(

It sure feels like your government is shitting on you during an already tough situation.


So the idea is the bank gave you a loan then forgave it, so it’s now income? That’s a big leap in logic and sounds evil considering you never consider that when getting a loan, you only expect the internet to accrue.

It is income. Someone gave you money. Otherwise, why wouldn’t a company “loan” you a higher salary and then just “forgive” the debt? Or, you could set up a company to loan yourself money — the company deducts the “loss” and you don’t pay taxes on the gain.

The principal is presumably income, however the interest or fees should not be. The IRS will even occasionally cancel debt that’s mostly fines and interest without considering it income.

Like all laws there should be some context. But I guess you’re right it’s an easy loophole to exploit and the simpler the tax law the better.

The IRS definitely (as definite as a capricious federal bureaucracy can be) let you make payments on the taxes in that situation.

This. Despite what many people think, the IRS doesn’t want to bankrupt people. They’ll work with you and set up a payment plan if necessary.

Yep me too. It's crazy. I had to consult with a bankruptcy lawyer because of this. I couldn't believe it.

What kind of amount in tax are you talking about? Is it net profit anyway compared to paying back tens of thousands?

According to the article, it's only the case if you were using the card for business.

And if you were a business that couldn't pay your 27.99% credit card for 16+ months, you have losses to count it against.


Presumably the article is talking about Canadian tax laws, whereas the parent is talking about US tax laws.

But if you borrowed 100 dollars at 20 interest (ie credit card) and ended up being forgiven a 1000 dollar debt - is that 100 or 1000 dollar to pay taxes on?

it's 1000

But if you loan someone $100 at 20% interest and write it off when it's $1000, it's a $100 deduction.

That's not how write offs work. If you spent $100 on materials making a widget, and valued it at $1000, then somehow lost it (eg. stolen, non paying customer), your profit is -$100[1], not -$1000. Likewise, you can't claim a $1000 loss on that debt, only $100. The only way you can claim $1000 is if you previously recorded the $900 in interest as profit (and paid taxes on it).

[1]

    profit = revenue - cost
           = 0 - $100
           = -$100

Is it? You're holding a contract that stipulates you're owed 1000 dollars...

Normally, you'd sell that on for more than the original 100 dollars.


I'd also be very interested to know whether this is also the case in the other western countries, as this is how several sketchy umbrella companies work in the UK.

For those unaware, an umbrella company acts as the "employer" of contractors for places like the NHS. It's often required (or perhaps phrased strongly enough as such by the recruiters that it's difficult for a layperson to know whether it's true) to have one, and they charge a fee + withhold income tax and national insurance contributions + pay the salary of the contractor.

The sketchy ones have determined that they can pay the contractor minimum wage + a small "loan" each month of the remainder which is promised (verbally only, of course) to be forgiven entirely, and this way charge a higher fee and remain competitive because the contractor is paying minimal tax.


HRMC cracked down on that recently and sent a bunch of NHS staff bills as large as multiple years of wages, which obviously they can't afford to pay: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/feb/16/thousands-of-w... Basically, they they changed the rules so that the entire "loan" counted as though it was forgiven and chargable as income in one lump sum in 2019, meaning that most of it was charged at the higher rate of tax.

The astounding thing about this is that as I understand it, the nurses and doctors who're being screwed over aren't generally the ones who benefited financially from this scheme - it was the NHS (effectively the government) which did. The companies running it witheld the tax the employees should've paid but kept it and used it to fund the cost of running payroll plus their profita, meaning the NHS didn't have to pay those costs. A bunch of existing employees were forced onto the scheme in order to keep their jobs too. (There were similar schemes for wealthy individuals in other industries which did cut them in on most of the tax savings though.)


Thanks for this.

On your second point, from my personal experience (we investigated the scam when it was offered to us before avoiding it based on the bad smell it gave off), my instinct would be to disagree.

When we did the calculations, we would have been hundreds of pounds per week better off under the conditions of the scam than if we had paid tax directly as a contractor or under an umbrella company who reported the full salary as a salary. I don't have much doubt that these nurses and doctors didn't benefit financially by only paying [tax and NI on minimum wage + the slightly higher umbrella fee] rather than [tax and NI on their full salary + a smaller umbrella fee]. Although that's not to say that they thought what they were doing was shady, or even that they actively chose that particular umbrella company.

I dont see the benefit to the NHS either. If the NHS pays the contractor's salary of £1000/month (under subcontract conditions) to:

- Umbrella company A, who then subtracts a fee + withholds (for HMRC) NI and tax for minimum wage before paying the contractor minimum wage + a loan of whatever remains from the £1000

and

- Umbrella company B, who subtracts a fee + withholds NI and tax for the full salary before paying the contractor the remainder

My understanding is that to the NHS both scenarios look the same (a cost to them of £1000/month), but in scenario A the contractor and umbrella company (through their ability to charge a higher fee than their competitors and still attract clientele) benefit from money which otherwise would have gone to HMRC.


The UK can, and previously has, clamped down on this kind of thing AND backdated the law as it’s classed as a clarification that they were breaking existing tax law provisions ... in some cases contractors had fines and penalties going back 20 years.

IR 35 is what a lot of these companies claim to shield you from ... but it’s notoriously complex.


Good lord that's awful. You're already down, and then a stroke of good fortune lets you rise off the mat, only for the IRS to show up and smack you back down again.

That’s correct but the taxes are waived if you can show insolvency, which is defined via a basic worksheet as an excess of debt over assets.

For most/many of the people going through a financial crisis that caused them to default that negates the tax effect.


Not in Canada for personal purchases
coldtea 9 days ago [flagged]

Is that the case anywhere else on the universe - besides totalitarian dystopias?

This law is likely to exist because someone treated 'debt forgiveness' as a loophole for earning tax free income.

Probably as a way to get around gift or estate taxes - if you can just "loan" someone money, then forgive it immediately, gift and estate taxes are trivially avoided.

The gift tax exemption is higher than the amount of unsecured debt most people owe.

Forget about unsecured debt - if a parent wants to give their child $100,000 there is no way to do that without paying taxes (or spreading it out over many years).

If they could simply "loan" their child $100k (with no intention to ever get paid back), then forgive the debt tax-free, they'd have successfully gotten around the gift tax.

The same thing could be potentially be used by an employer: instead of paying wages, they could just "loan" (again, not intending to be paid back) their employee money, then forgive the debt tax-free.


It is now, but this was not always true.

Canada has neither gift or estate taxes.

this is an oversimplification, you still have to file capital gains, there are some exemption, so it works for debt cancellation and few other things, but it's not as straightforward as "neither gift nor estate taxes"

If you wanted to design a system to reward addictive spending, it would look like this -- random intermittent reinforcement of problematic behaviors.

Yup, it doesn't feel exactly fair too. There's a voice inside of me that says: "It takes me almost a year to save that amount of money, and these people get it for free because they couldn't resist to spend money they didn't have?". But let's just accept that the world is not fair, and it will never be.

I still feel great for the people who were in serious financial trouble and are not anymore. Let's just hope they see it as an incentive to never be in that situation again.


Came here to post this exact sentiment... I mean that one long haul trucker was so ecstatic his almost 7k debt was forgiven and said something to the effect of "I'm glad the number was up there." Really?

He's honest. If he had accumulated just 1k, then he would be annoyed that he hadn't taken on more. To him it's just free money.

Yeah when I read that, I thought, this man would have benefited from a behavioral intervention and instead what he got was an Ex Machina

It is a true black swan. I doubt it happens regularly enough to become a reinforcement mechanism.

I hope you're right

It's sad because it's true.

You think end of the year bonuses are bad too?

How's that similar?

I didn't see it in the article, but I wonder how much debt that was forgiven was actual credit extended for purchases (which is money that Chase has "lost" as they won't recover it) and how much debt was interest+fees on the credit they extended.

Wow! That's one way to get out of the Canadian market. Wonder what the number one cost was the get out of the market the normal way, legal fees?

Assuming people are only making minimum payments, they could have had to maintain operations for 20 years or so, even if they otherwise closed the accounts and only accepted credits (to them) and no debits on the accounts.

I dont know what infrastructure amd employment levels they would have had to maintain to service the accounts. I'm sure they probably ran the numbers, compared what they'd receive to cost of operations and probably realized itd either be a wash or a money losing proposition and decided to take the cheaper/expedient way out.

Personally, I'd love this deal. My CC is closed, but still paying down a very large sum. Got married, assumed my wife's debts and struggling to get our heads above water. Should be clear in another 4 years sigh, maybe sooner if I can get a few good bonuses in the next few years.


You got this! My wife and I have been married just over 5 years now and still have $50k~ of debt left, most of it is her student loans.

Don't be afraid to shop around for jobs too. I'm about to transition to a new company making 50% more after putting 5 years in at my current job. Luckily, I liked the job so I had time to really search for another one that would be a good fit culturally as well and that paid more.

Now we're going to be debt free hopefully by Christmas 2020 and making $110k/yr and 26 y/o at that time. Not to mention bonuses and raises for both of us in the next 18 months. My wife has only been out of school and working for 2 years as an engineer, so she has plenty of room left to move up and I can keep working for software companies with great work/life balance and people that I like.

Win win! Rooting for you :)


I'm not worried. We have the savings to cover the debt, problem is I have a hard time touching it, since I work in Back office finance IT. I have access to the entirety of the firms positions and trades. Id like to cash out, because earning 3-4% interest, while paying out 20% interest on around 50k in debt makes far less sense than paying no interesting and paying into a matching 401k...

To be honest, this has probably been my single biggest stressor since getting married, and my wife's apparent mental block that finances are tight (when they shouldn't be) and she keeps buying non essential items.

A lot of this is self inflicted, then complicated with medical issues on shitty insurance. I mean, the year before I got married, I was debt free, even after been unemployed for 6 months (and I didnt file for benefits, stupidly).

We spent too much on our rings, but not on the wedding (we did a JOP wedding and a nice dinner afterward with just my wife, 2 step kids and myself). But, we had to move out of my 1 bed + den apartment into a 3 bed, 3.5 bath townhouse. More than doubled rent, but was necessary.

I mean, I make good money, but on my salary, we're struggling, living paycheck to paycheck, in large part of debt I assumed from marriage and medical issues. Kicker is I have the savings to cover it, but cannot get to due to compliance issues.


Well they already "got out" of the market by selling off or closing their CC portfolio and outsourcing their CSR responsibilities to a Canadian provider.

Their only users remaining were those who've been carrying a balance for the past couple years.


I think it's been about a 16 months since they exited.

I overpaid my last bill by a cent in hopes they would waste their time and money to cut me a cheque, but they did not.

Their Amazon card was pretty decent: no foreign exchange fee and no annual fee. It was my "daily driver" for non-CAD$ transactions like domain names, hosting, Paypal, Aliexpress.

Such a pain for me when they got rid of it.


I had a weird situation where Amazon.com refunded me some import charges some months after the amazon.ca visa was closed, and the money seemed to just disappear into the ether. Amazon.com ended up just issuing me an Amazon.com credit for the amount after I complained.

Have you found a suitable replacement??

HomeTrust Visa: https://www.hometrust.ca/credit-cards/preferred-visa-card/

Similar to Chase Amazon: no forex charge. No annual fee.

Pro: Includes roadside assistance and rental collision insurance, 1% cashback

Pros/Cons: Doesn't support tap/RFID payment.

Cons: Application can take forever (not sure about current state).

Cons: Higher foreign ATM withdrawal fee than Amazon (1.5% vs 1%, with similar minimum fee


Thanks, any idea if there's also one with no ATM fees?

Stack MasterCard or Koho Visa, you just have to be aware of their withdrawal limits.

Stack is great until it's not. Don't let it be your only card. I was in Taiwan and couldn't load the card as they were having trouble with their Interac processor. Luckily I have a UK Monzo card that kind of saved the day for ATM transfers. My Canadian bank charge a stupid amount on ATM withdrawals.

Don't believe so. If there are, they're in the $100+/year annual fee club.

I use Home Trust like the other poster, but Rogers is also an alternative if you can deal with their weird forex structure and the general unpleasantness of dealing with Rogers. (2.5% forex fee and then 4% cashback on forex transactions, so you still get hosed on forex if you ever get refunds on the card)

Home Trust has a few annoyances too, most notably a 10-transaction per day limit that you can run into when travelling.

Otherwise Scotiabank Gold Amex recently dropped their forex fee and might work for you depending on spending habits.


My primary beef with the Rogers card is that it’s Rogers.

Changing terms or new charges for things that cost them nothing or reduce their costs is their business model.


I use Rogers World Elite Mastercard

4% cash back in a foreign currency

2% cash back on Rogers' services

1.75% cash back otherwise

Rental car insurance

Airport lounge access

No fee


Jubilee is pretty fun.

I wonder how this gets reported to the credit bureaus.

Better not to own a credit card in the first place, with so many people in so much debt you really should be questioning the notion that there's a 'responsible' way to use a credit card.

Well, there is a responsible way: use it like a charge card.

Liquidity and debt help societies and people. It’s just important that you pay off the card before the 18% rates kick in. But there are smart ways of avoiding these rates for a long time. For example you can roll over your debt into new cards before the interest rates kick. This could allow you to keep debt for months without paying any interest at all.

The problem with debt is when you use it purely for consumption instead of investment or increased efficiency of your consumption. But in general, debt and leverage are a very powerful thing and essential to an efficient market.


>Liquidity and debt help societies and people

Interest helps a small portion of people, while harming the majority.

>It’s just important that you pay off the card before the 18% rates kick in.

If enough people did that banks wouldn't bother.

>The problem with debt is when you use it purely for consumption instead of investment or increased efficiency of your consumption

No, it merely mitigates the risks, if your business venture goes sour you will not be in a good place. There's also the question of 'what counts as an investment' although this is a minute issue compared to the aforementioned.


> Interest helps a small portion of people, while harming the majority.

Would you rather that no one could get access loans? If you truly believe that position, it would very much undermines the autonomy and choice of the people without capital: businesses, individuals, start-ups, whatever.

If you think that interest is a bad thing, what is the alternative? Sharia finance? You wanna go back to times of usury laws? Or that Christians can't loan to other Christians?

What about government? You think there should only be negative interest rate bonds? What about the federal funds rate, LIBOR, T-note yields, etc? Do you have a coherent system that could replace these financial instruments?


>Would you rather that no one could get access loans?

If they had interest then yes.

>If you truly believe that position, it would very much undermines the autonomy and choice of the people without capital: businesses, individuals, start-ups, whatever.

Without interest the amount of capital those groups would need would significantly decrease. I'm willing to sacrifice a reasonable amount of autonomy in order to stop people burning themselves and devaluing the earnings of others.

>If you think that interest is a bad thing, what is the alternative? Sharia finance?

The alternative is a number of things working together, sharia finance yes, the end of fiat currency, guaranteed minimum income to get those without capital to a point where they can contribute to society and a restoration of trust based society so that those with close bonds will be more likely to loan to each other interest free and out of good will (this is probably the most difficult of the three but I have some ideas).


Okay, how about you give me $1000 and I'll pay you back when I die. I'm good for it, I promise.

If so, I'll give you my bitcoin address.

The time value of money is so fundamental, and so obvious, that you must be being deliberately obtuse to not understand it. Money today is worth more than money tomorrow.


>Okay, how about you give me $1000 and I'll pay you back when I die. I'm good for it, I promise.

I have no reason to trust you.

>The time value of money is so fundamental, and so obvious, that you must be being deliberately obtuse to not understand it

No one's saying time doesn't have monetary value, it's a variable many businesses depend on, but that shouldn't mean you simply get to do the direct conversion and sidestep creating meaningful longterm value and make it more difficult for those without money to get anywhere without being under your thumb.


I've never paid a cent in interest and using a credit card means I don't worry about having my debit card number stolen.

You don't have to worry about your debit card number being stolen, all debit cards nowadays have the same protection.

> all debit cards nowadays have the same protection

Sure but then you will be missing that cash until that protection can be dealt with. On a credit card, it's not your cash that has been stolen, you don't have to care, you move to your debit card.

On the other hand, your cash got stolen, you have to wait until it's handled to get a refund, and you need to use credit instead with cash that you don't have.

I also get 1% cash back on my credit card.


That's why you have multiple debit cards.

It's the only reasonable method I know for renting a car.

I've rented cars with a regular debit card. Why would it need to be a credit card?

Depends on the rental company and the rental contract. A lot of renters want a credit card rather than a debit card, as assurance you can pay additional charges/fees/damages should they occur. In cases where I put down a credit card, I usually see a hold on the card that's 20% higher than the rental contract, but that gets replaced with a regular charge later.

The extent to which this is necessary varies from context to context. For example, whenever I've been at an airport location, the rental companies have said they can only use a debit card if you have an itinerary with a return flight. Presumably you're a lower theft risk or something.

I'm sure it's all negotiable and/or there are a dozen other conditions where they will accept a debit card. Things like having a rewards membership or good rental history, purchasing insurance through them, using AAA, etc. Honestly even within the same company, the specifics seem to vary by location.

Presumably some rental companies don't have such a policy at all because low-credit individuals are a large portion of their customer base.


Huh, I've been told this is effectively impossible. I believe it was related to the need for a large security deposit. However, this was mostly in the US and western Europe, maybe it's different elsewhere.

I'm in the UK. The only place other than here I've rented a car is in Ireland. I can't remember if I used a credit or debit card there though.

FUD

Oh man, I'm predicting a new wave of scam emails in the coming months.

Legitimate news articles like this are irresistible to the 419 scammers.


Are we sure this actually occurred? If anything this is going to make it easier for american banks to exploit students and side-step legislation that would actually fix the root of the student debt bubble in America.

By this I mean people will now just point to Canada and demand a bailout without really committing effort to passing laws that will prevent exploitative interest rates and pricing schemes by private universities.


Yes, I can confirm it happened. A relative of mine was quite happy when this happened. Myself, I migrated off their cards years ago.

That said, I don’t think it will lead to bailout. Debt forgiveness is a rare but standard practice in trying to rebuild credit scores, is my understanding, and a way of getting some return rather than the zilch you’d get from a personal bankruptcy. It’s just that bankruptcy doesn’t affect student loans in the US, so folks are absolutely stuck there...


> It’s just that bankruptcy doesn’t affect student loans in the US, so folks are absolutely stuck there...

I mean, in theory (wink), you could always pay off your student loan debt using other forms of debt, and then go bankrupt.


Courts aren't stupid, I don't think they'd look kindly upon you if they see you've done this.

Why would courts care? Student loans are not dischargable, because the student loan creditor lobbied to make sure they get laid. The replacement creditor has not.

Of course, there is no lender who is going to give a an unsecured loan the size of your substantial student debt to someone with said loans and no other assets, for obvious reasons.


> Why would courts care?

Because it's fraud. Taking on big debts you never intend to pay right before a bankruptcy will get you in a lot of trouble.


I’m not that sure that’s actually a euphemism that is used in the student loan industry.

You would need to play the long game here. Maybe use a balance transfer with a promotional rate a couple times to kick the can down the road, and then file for bankruptcy.

If this is constituted as a preferential payment, the clawback period is 90 days, if it's considered fraud, it would be longer. However, if someone lets you borrow money unsecured and you use it to pay a non-dischargeable debt, and you can't make the payments on the new debt, that's most likely the new lender's poor judgement.


Where are you going to find a lender dumb enough to lend you that kind of money?

If you have a time machine, 2007.



Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: