renegin on a financial agreement

Andy Miller

New Member
Jurisdiction
Virginia
I'll try to type out this "long story short".
I am asking for a friend of mine, she is divorced, I'll call her Cherie. Her former boyfriend, I'll call him Stuart, took advantage of her and then left town unannounced. Changed his cell phone number and ghosted her for several months. She learned that he had been unfaithful to her and their relationship with at least one other woman. Cherie is now able to correspond with him via email.
He is a citizen of the UK, was married to an American woman prior to dating my friend. I don't know if his US citizenship was ever completed. He is now residing near Boston, Mass and has a new girlfriend with whom he now has a child.
He left Roanoke, Virginia in late summer 2019. Prior to his departure he had accumulated quite a bit of debt. Cherie took out a debt consolidation loan in her name to help him. They agreed to a repayment plan. For about 24 months of the 48-month agreed repayment, he would Venmo her the monthly payment on the 1st of the month, usually later after being "reminded" by Cherie.
Yesterday he sent her an email stating that he was no longer going to make monthly payments and she had no proof that it is his debt.
She responded to his email:
"Stuart ~ You are incorrect and this is not what you agreed to (via conversations that took place during September- November 2019). You agreed that you were obligated to the financial debt you incurred in my name and the agreement we made for repayment. You committed to the loan amount ($7000), the interest amount (7% = $1045.94), and the amortization timetable (48 months). You've also paid, on record and to date, 24 of the 48 monthly installments we agreed upon.
You, personally, used my credit all the way up through June 2019; even as to fund a personal trip to Florida. I never utilized the card(s) ($4000 on Old Navy and $3000 on Best Buy) you used for your personal purchases; I have taken and continue to take responsibility for my own purchases & debt. Meanwhile, you frequently neglected to pay the credit card bill(s) you were responsible for, and/or you paid late. Additionally, you never paid more than the minimum, causing the debt to remain intact and for the cards to stay maxed out. You are financially savvy and mathematically smart enough to know how credit card debt and interest rates work (not to mention the fact that I provided ALL of that information to you monthly, as well as when I took out the consolidation loan, equally on your behalf, to help minimize the impact of the situation and to resolve it).
The 4 year amount you agreed to pay was based solely on your spending and you agreed to pay it spread over four years; as opposed to the 3, 5 or 6 year periods also offered to you. I agreed to significantly lower your interest rate and the total payoff amount by agreeing to take on a loan against my home and extend it over a time period that you agreed you could manage.
I am incredibly disappointed and hurt by the extent and lengths to which you will go to shirk, once again, your responsibilities, and put them on someone else; with that someone else being a real person and the one person who trusted you and defended you when no one else would.
I won't dignify the remainder of your email commentary with a response; clearly you have chosen to lie not only me, but yourself. However, that is neither here nor there. The only aspect of this situation that is relevant is that you agreed to pay off your credit card debt over a 4 year, 48 installment period, at the rate of $167.62 a month (to which there is a record of to date).
FYI - The family you have chosen to be responsible for feeding, housing and clothing has nothing to do with me or your outstanding debt; as you should be aware, reality and responsibility are cumulative. You acquired the debt prior to taking on the new responsibilities you have chosen to accept, but if does not negate your previous responsibilities.
On a personal note:
The level of reprehensible behavior you have now chosen to exhibit is genuinely repulsive. I feel sorry for you, your family, your friends, your colleagues and especially your child. You are a disgrace."

He replied to her:
"I have no guilt here. I know why I accepted to help you in the first place and I know why I am removing that help now.
Given the way you have ended your correspondence you are not to contact me or any member of my family again. Should you do so it will be met, swiftly, with any and all legal measures open to me."

What makes this even worse is how Stuart knows about Cherie's marriage. The abuse, infidelity, the gaslighting and things she put up with before she had to leave in fear for her own safety. Knowing all this, he still took advantage of her kind heart.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated...

I can't think of any legal measure that Stuart has to make such a threat to Cherie.
It would be difficult to prove to a court the agreement Dave and Cherie had since so much was verbal or done via email accounts that no longer exist (a former employer).
The fact that he left Virginia and now resides in Massachusetts complicates things as well.
 
I can't think of any legal measure that Stuart has to make such a threat to Cherie.
It would be difficult to prove to a court the agreement Stuart and Cherie had since so much was verbal or done via email accounts that no longer exist (a former employer).
The fact that he left Virginia and now resides in Massachusetts complicates things as well.


Your assumptions lead a reasonable person to chalk these incidents up to another lesson from Hardknocks University, life skills college.

Never loan anyone money.

No is easier to say than yes.

It you can't say no, don't say loan, simply say, "I'll give you $XXX."

Your gift might be less than the requested amount, allowing you to to say, "Sorry I can't loan you $100, but I can GIVE you $20!"

In the instant matter at hand, Cherie will never get another dollar out of Stuart. As you concluded, Cherie in VA, while Stuart has slithered away to MA eliminates a small claims action.

Cherie needs to let it go, move forward, don't look back.

If she can't, Stuart's misdeeds will haunt her forever, which will never reduce the debt.

Cherie needs to learn, if I can't afford to give away $5.00, I can't loan $5.00.
 
Charlie needs to recognize that this is in fact her debt.
She does have good information that could be shown to prove the ex agreed to pay and to seek reimbursement, but pursuing him over it out of state is not going to be easy, or cheap.
If Cherie does not pay her debts the collectors will pursue her, not him.
 
Cherie needs to learn, if I can't afford to give away $5.00, I can't loan $5.00.
I agree with what you've said and even wanted to highlight this. This is a personal mantra of mine. In any financial dealings with family or friends, I've always considered it (internally) a gift, for which I was pleasantly surprised when it was gifted back to me.
 
I agree with what you've said and even wanted to highlight this. This is a personal mantra of mine. In any financial dealings with family or friends, I've always considered it (internally) a gift, for which I was pleasantly surprised when it was gifted back to me.

I acquired that philosophy from my mom and dad.

I've tweaked it in that I'll tell the other person that its a gift.

If the person insists on paying it back, I place it in what I call my slush account.

I'm surprised at what that account has accumulated over the years.

I'm not surprised when the debt is paid, because I've come to know which relatives are reliable, and which ones are fake.
 
Thanks everyone, agreed on never seeing another cent from Stuart. She knows this, too.

Do any of you have a comment on the other concern that Cherie has about his "threat" should she ever attempt to contact him again?
 
Your assumptions lead a reasonable person to chalk these incidents up to another lesson from Hardknocks University, life skills college.

Never loan anyone money.

No is easier to say than yes.

It you can't say no, don't say loan, simply say, "I'll give you $XXX."

Your gift might be less than the requested amount, allowing you to to say, "Sorry I can't loan you $100, but I can GIVE you $20!"

In the instant matter at hand, Cherie will never get another dollar out of Stuart. As you concluded, Cherie in VA, while Stuart has slithered away to MA eliminates a small claims action.

Cherie needs to let it go, move forward, don't look back.

If she can't, Stuart's misdeeds will haunt her forever, which will never reduce the debt.

Cherie needs to learn, if I can't afford to give away $5.00, I can't loan $5.00.

Do you have any comment on the other concern that Cherie has about his "threat" should she ever attempt to contact him again?
 
Charlie needs to recognize that this is in fact her debt.
She does have good information that could be shown to prove the ex agreed to pay and to seek reimbursement, but pursuing him over it out of state is not going to be easy, or cheap.
If Cherie does not pay her debts the collectors will pursue her, not him.

She knows she'll never see another cent from Stuart.

Do you have any comment on the other concern that Cherie has about his "threat" should she ever attempt to contact him again?
 
I agree with what you've said and even wanted to highlight this. This is a personal mantra of mine. In any financial dealings with family or friends, I've always considered it (internally) a gift, for which I was pleasantly surprised when it was gifted back to me.

Do you have any comment on the other concern that Cherie has about his email "threat" should she ever attempt to contact him again?
 
"I have no guilt here. I know why I accepted to help you in the first place and I know why I am removing that help now.
Given the way you have ended your correspondence you are not to contact me or any member of my family again. Should you do so it will be met, swiftly, with any and all legal measures open to me."


Do you have any comment on the other concern that Cherie has about his email "threat" should she ever attempt to contact him again?

I sure do!

Be smart, avoid all contact with stupid people.

If Cherie wises up and never contacts "Runaway Man", he won't contact her, she can live a peace filled life.

Read on, mate, read on.

I see no threats in what you allege "Runaway Man" has typed.

"Runaway Man" appears ready to exercise any and all legal remedies available to him.
"Runaway Man" has "unassed" the "AOO" and will exercise any and all legal remedies available to the citizenry.

It would seem to me that the distance between all parties serves as a protective buffer for all parties involved.

In the future, someone needs to allow the indebted ones to extricate themselves from the mountain of debt in which they've buried themselves.

Bottom line, don't volunteer to assist dumb people.

Dumb people are always in some sort of trouble or fighting a crisis.

If you are involved with a dumb person, sever all ties immediately.

Dumb people are never in a hurry to smarten up.

Dumb people don't even know they're dumb.

It is easy to identify dumb people.

If you see a dumb person, as in stupid, flee to safety immediately.

What is the cause of stupidity?

Not having self-control means being a victim of events, acting irrationally as a result. As clearly described by Cipolla, this is the first and foremost cause of human stupidity. So, people lacking self-control behave stupidly because they are inclined to act impulsively, without rationality.



"You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity."

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."

"Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation."

"Stupidity cannot be cured. Stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death. There is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity."

---ROBERT A. HEINLEIN

stupidpeople.jpg
 
I sure do!

"Runaway Man" appears ready to exercise any and all legal remedies available to him.
"Runaway Man" has "unassed" the "AOO" and will exercise any and all legal remedies available to the citizenry.

That was my question, in all the setup and the various blustery answers about not loaning money to people, no one really answered the question...
I was asking what legal remedies would someone like "Runaway Man" have in this situation?
He says "do not ever contact me again", she replies with a short answer to confrim that he is skipping out on the agreed-upon repayment, and also (obviously) she is wanting to have the last word.
Does an email like that violate his "do not contact me again" guantlet?
If so, what possible legal remedies could he possibly have?
It was my opinion that he was merely threatening her because he realizes what a douche move the whole thing has been and doesn't like to be reminded of his douchery.

It's a given that it was foolish to try and financially help the man who would become "Runaway Man", she knows the debt is hers to repay now. She feels appropriately stupid for it. Those facts were never in question.

I told her to look at it this way, she basically will pay $x over the next several billing cycles to have that guy out of her life forever. Money well spent.
 
That was my question, in all the setup and the various blustery answers about not loaning money to people, no one really answered the question...
I was asking what legal remedies would someone like "Runaway Man" have in this situation?
He says "do not ever contact me again", she replies with a short answer to confrim that he is skipping out on the agreed-upon repayment, and also (obviously) she is wanting to have the last word.
Does an email like that violate his "do not contact me again" guantlet?
If so, what possible legal remedies could he possibly have?
It was my opinion that he was merely threatening her because he realizes what a douche move the whole thing has been and doesn't like to be reminded of his douchery.

It's a given that it was foolish to try and financially help the man who would become "Runaway Man", she knows the debt is hers to repay now. She feels appropriately stupid for it. Those facts were never in question.

I told her to look at it this way, she basically will pay $x over the next several billing cycles to have that guy out of her life forever. Money well spent.
In the end it really doesn't matter if her e-mail passed a legal line into harassment...Does she really think it's worth it to pick the scab until he file for a restraining order or files a harassment complaint with the police, just "to get the last word"? Is it really a smart move to follow her regrettably bad decision to loan him $$ with actions that could land her in court? Even if he loses the court case, she will still have to spend more $$ on defending herself and waste her time attending the proceedings.

Also making threads about this situation, when "runaway man" can identify himself if he see's it, is truly a dumb move.
 
you are not to contact me or any member of my family again. Should you do so it will be met, swiftly, with any and all legal measures open to me."

Legal measures: Restraining order, harassment lawsuit, police report.

If she wants to go after her money, she sues him.

Otherwise, she backs off, eats her mistake and gets on with her life.

It's that simple.
 
Also making threads about this situation, when "runaway man" can identify himself if he see's it, is truly a dumb move.

I don't care if he sees this random post/thread on an obscure website and thinks it's about him. If anything, all the replies would reassure him that he is in the clear.
 
I don't care if he sees this random post/thread on an obscure website and thinks it's about him. If anything, all the replies would reassure him that he is in the clear.
The Thread can be used to support harassment charges/defamation suit. IP addresses can be subpoenaed. Obscure website? You found this site....he easily could as well. The internet can be a very small world.
 
Back
Top