Paying Old Debts

[Neto]

If you discover that you have an old, unpaid debt....

... hope no one finds out, especially the one to whom it was owed.
... pay the original amount, with no correction for lost value due to inflation.
... pay current value, based on an inflation adjustment formula.

For instance:

https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl ... ar2=202404

$1.00 in October of 2002 to April of this year = $1.73.

[Josh]

Statute of limitations in my state is 6 years. I get calls from some debt collector claiming I owe them money (except it's out of statute). They have no idea who the original creditor was (their creditor on file is just another debt collector I've never heard of). I suspect it may have something to do with a cable-Internet bill where the cable company failed to credit me for the return of the cable modem equipment.

It depends on to whom it's owed. I wouldn't care one whit about the above example. On the other hand, if I found out someone legitimately was expecting money from me 10 years ago, I'd sent it to them. I once had a situation where I sold something to someone on eBay, there were issues with shipping, and somehow the refund didn't go through. They left me positive feedback anyway. I noticed it a year or two later, contacted them, and sent them a refund via cheque. I felt bad, so I added 10% to the amount for their trouble.

[Neto]

Family business.
The father (company founder) gave shares in the company to each of his children.
An inactive shareholder (older sibling) was bought out.
Over 20 years later, after the parents had already passed away, the younger sibling said the older sibling had received too much.
The older child always regarded the buy-out as having been fair, but never saw any actual data until the younger one stated that it was "too much", and apparently demanded compensation.
After much research, it has been established from company financial statements that the pay-out was actually not representative of the actual value.
The short-fall at the pay-out time was well more than $40,000.00.
From hear-say, the younger sibling is "well off", while the oldest is not (again, according to hear-say).
The younger sibling refuses to invite a mediator to speak into the resulting dispute.

Obviously, the statute of limitations has passed.
Is there a moral obligation for the other child to pay at least some percentage of the short-fall?
Or, should the child who was shorted just "forgive and forget"?
(This is a conservative Mennonite family.)

[RZehr]

Depends on how the payout was structured or calculated.
Was there a written valuation formula that was agreed upon? If that was the case and someone did the math incorrectly, the. The money is still owed. As far as interest, that could go either was.
If the payout was an agreed upon lump sum, then possibly more money is not owed.

Basically, it sounds like an honest mistake. A fair court or arbitrator based solely on the technicality of the agreement would not consider the current prosperity or poverty of the two parties, since that isn’t really relevant to the question of whether the money is owed or not and if interest is owed or not.
However, it would seem a bit appropriate for Christians to take the parties current financial picture into account. If they were both fairly similar, then the judgment is might look different than if one was filthy rich and the other one desperately poor. If the this was the case. I’d probably just rule in favor of the poor Christian since he either needs the payout, or else he cannot make the payout anyway.

[steve-in-kville]

Debt among family can get ugly. Even when an inheritance is spelled out in a written will.... still can get nasty.

[ken_sylvania]

Family business.
The father (company founder) gave shares in the company to each of his children.
An inactive shareholder (older sibling) was bought out.
Over 20 years later, after the parents had already passed away, the younger sibling said the older sibling had received too much.
The older child always regarded the buy-out as having been fair, but never saw any actual data until the younger one stated that it was "too much", and apparently demanded compensation.
After much research, it has been established from company financial statements that the pay-out was actually not representative of the actual value.
The short-fall at the pay-out time was well more than $40,000.00.
From hear-say, the younger sibling is "well off", while the oldest is not (again, according to hear-say).
The younger sibling refuses to invite a mediator to speak into the resulting dispute.

Obviously, the statute of limitations has passed.
Is there a moral obligation for the other child to pay at least some percentage of the short-fall?
Or, should the child who was shorted just "forgive and forget"?
(This is a conservative Mennonite family.)

Are you saying the younger sibling thought the buy-out had been too much, but it was actually too little?

[Pelerin]

Family business.
The father (company founder) gave shares in the company to each of his children.
An inactive shareholder (older sibling) was bought out.
Over 20 years later, after the parents had already passed away, the younger sibling said the older sibling had received too much.
The older child always regarded the buy-out as having been fair, but never saw any actual data until the younger one stated that it was "too much", and apparently demanded compensation.
After much research, it has been established from company financial statements that the pay-out was actually not representative of the actual value.
The short-fall at the pay-out time was well more than $40,000.00.
From hear-say, the younger sibling is "well off", while the oldest is not (again, according to hear-say).
The younger sibling refuses to invite a mediator to speak into the resulting dispute.

Obviously, the statute of limitations has passed.
Is there a moral obligation for the other child to pay at least some percentage of the short-fall?
Or, should the child who was shorted just "forgive and forget"?
(This is a conservative Mennonite family.)

I feel like Jesus himself already answered this one directly.

(Luke 12)

[Ken]

Family business.
The father (company founder) gave shares in the company to each of his children.
An inactive shareholder (older sibling) was bought out.
Over 20 years later, after the parents had already passed away, the younger sibling said the older sibling had received too much.
The older child always regarded the buy-out as having been fair, but never saw any actual data until the younger one stated that it was "too much", and apparently demanded compensation.
After much research, it has been established from company financial statements that the pay-out was actually not representative of the actual value.
The short-fall at the pay-out time was well more than $40,000.00.
From hear-say, the younger sibling is "well off", while the oldest is not (again, according to hear-say).
The younger sibling refuses to invite a mediator to speak into the resulting dispute.

Obviously, the statute of limitations has passed.
Is there a moral obligation for the other child to pay at least some percentage of the short-fall?
Or, should the child who was shorted just "forgive and forget"?
(This is a conservative Mennonite family.)

There is no debt and younger brother should move on with his life.

First, the father was not under any obligation to give each of his children equal shares of the company to begin with. Nor is that necessarily the fair thing to do. One sibling may have put much more effort into the company than another. And there is no law that says inheritances must be equal.

Second, from the sequence of events, the buyout seems to have happened when the father was still alive. So it should be presumed that he was comfortable with it and approved of it. The buyout reflected his wishes.

Furthermore, there is nothing to "forget and forgive". The older sibling did no wrong unless he was instrumental in corruptly manipulating the buyout in his favor 20 years ago.

End of story.

My own family has an even more complicated but similar story.

[Neto]

Family business.
The father (company founder) gave shares in the company to each of his children.
An inactive shareholder (older sibling) was bought out.
Over 20 years later, after the parents had already passed away, the younger sibling said the older sibling had received too much.
The older child always regarded the buy-out as having been fair, but never saw any actual data until the younger one stated that it was "too much", and apparently demanded compensation.
After much research, it has been established from company financial statements that the pay-out was actually not representative of the actual value.
The short-fall at the pay-out time was well more than $40,000.00.
From hear-say, the younger sibling is "well off", while the oldest is not (again, according to hear-say).
The younger sibling refuses to invite a mediator to speak into the resulting dispute.

Obviously, the statute of limitations has passed.
Is there a moral obligation for the other child to pay at least some percentage of the short-fall?
Or, should the child who was shorted just "forgive and forget"?
(This is a conservative Mennonite family.)

Are you saying the younger sibling thought the buy-out had been too much, but it was actually too little?

Yes. That is what the actual fact show. These documents were never made available to the older sibling - there was just simple trust that the father had acted fairly. That is not being contested, as other evidences were identified that demonstrate that the father, while a good businessman, did not adequately understand the applicable laws. In fairness to him, it was he who built the business, and while the other children (one passed away some years ago) worked in the business, judging from their apparent wealth, it is assumed that they received full remuneration for their work in the company. The father GAVE his children shares that represented a large part of the business. So he continued with the mindset of a business owner, even after he had given away all but a very small percentage of the stock. (He also made some business decisions that were not wise from the inheritance angle, and some that exposed other holdings to any possible lawsuit against the company. These were investments that actually had no relationship to the business activity itself.) Then he also made verbal statements to the eldest sibling which were apparently never put in writing, and of which the younger sibling claims to have been completely unaware. None of this can be legally established. I think that this can only be solved through mediation, or, if that fails, arbitration.

Can a 1/2 owner of property 'require' the other to submit to either of these options? (You can tell that I am in over my head on this, thus an eagerness on my part to see the involvement of a person more distant from the problem.)

Ironically (or through 'providence'), I picked up a copy of the current issue of the PCBE (in the trash at the Post Office) just this morning, and saw an article in there titled "The Peacemaker's Dilemma", by Don Tyler. Does anyone here know him? (Like the fictional characters in the illustrative cases he constructs at the beginning of the article, I personally do not like conflict, and also try to avoid it where ever possible.)

[Neto]

Family business.
The father (company founder) gave shares in the company to each of his children.
An inactive shareholder (older sibling) was bought out.
Over 20 years later, after the parents had already passed away, the younger sibling said the older sibling had received too much.
The older child always regarded the buy-out as having been fair, but never saw any actual data until the younger one stated that it was "too much", and apparently demanded compensation.
After much research, it has been established from company financial statements that the pay-out was actually not representative of the actual value.
The short-fall at the pay-out time was well more than $40,000.00.
From hear-say, the younger sibling is "well off", while the oldest is not (again, according to hear-say).
The younger sibling refuses to invite a mediator to speak into the resulting dispute.

Obviously, the statute of limitations has passed.
Is there a moral obligation for the other child to pay at least some percentage of the short-fall?
Or, should the child who was shorted just "forgive and forget"?
(This is a conservative Mennonite family.)

There is no debt and younger brother should move on with his life.

First, the father was not under any obligation to give each of his children equal shares of the company to begin with. Nor is that necessarily the fair thing to do. One sibling may have put much more effort into the company than another. And there is no law that says inheritances must be equal.

Second, from the sequence of events, the buyout seems to have happened when the father was still alive. So it should be presumed that he was comfortable with it and approved of it. The buyout reflected his wishes.

Furthermore, there is nothing to "forget and forgive". The older sibling did no wrong unless he was instrumental in corruptly manipulating the buyout in his favor 20 years ago.

End of story.

My own family has an even more complicated but similar story.

You may have confused the roles of the two siblings.

Yes, the father was apparently the one who came up with the amount for the buy back of the older sibling's (the in-active share-holder) shares. But the holdings for each child were equal, so he obviously intended it to be the same, both for those who worked for the company, and for the one who didn't (or very little, especially after increased mechanization).

As I understand how shares work in listed companies, employees (and perhaps especially top administrative officials) are given the opportunity to purchase stocks at the internal 'book value', which is usually lower than the 'market value'. Employees, whether they are family members or not, have the freedom to work elsewhere. So there is no reason to assume that they 'deserve' a greater part of the company, unless they purchased additional shares, whether at a full or reduced rate. (At least that is my personal opinion, as a non-professional in the field.)