Press "Enter" to skip to content

Would you stiff a bank?

The Dollar Vigilante has a new feature — a monthly advice column called “Dear Slavey.” It started off with a bang on July 2, when “Slavey” advised some poor credit-card serf to “Just. Don’t. Pay.”

No surprise, this drew feedback and some heated back-and-forthing about the morality of keeping one’s pledges.

Slavey’s position is that banks are corrupt from top to bottom and unilaterally change their “agreements” with us at will, so eff ’em all. Besides, businesses walk away from billions of dollars in debt without an eyeblink.

He does warn, however, that in some states you can now be sent to jail for not paying even supposedly unsecured debt (e.g. credit cards). And isn’t it ironic that the Land of the Free is reintroducing debtors prison (albeit under a different pretext) at the very time bankers are swindling entire countries and paying no consequences?

Paying no consequences? Heck, they’re reaping rewards.

Cartoon of a bank holding up its customers

And now we’ve got the LIBOR scam, whose teeny little iceberg tip reveals a pervasive cynicism in the banking industry that some say should, or will, be the death of banking. The murder of trust, it’s been called. But was trust still breathing, even before that?

So … back to the question posed in the headline: Would YOU stiff a bank? Would you walk out on your credit card payments or walk away from institutional debt of any sort? “Just. Don’t. Pay”?

We freedomistas have always saluted the sanctity of contracts. Most of us have scoffed at people who get themselves into ridiculous levels of debt. We tend to have fine, high senses of honor. Most of us, I suspect, would plunk down to our last dollar on a debt, just to be the kind of person we can stand to look at in the mirror.

Or at least that’s the way it’s been in the past.

But are we being honorable — or are we just being played for a bunch of suckers? Are we upholding the values of free markets (even as the folks on the other end of the deal no longer do)? Or are we just rubes playing by the rules in a casino that no longer even bothers to pretend that the game isn’t rigged?

Would YOU walk away? Would YOU stiff a bank?


  1. Richard
    Richard July 10, 2012 5:45 pm

    I would only stiff a bank that has stiffed me. And even then I normally pay what I calculate to be the “expected deal”. There are many banks that lay it all on the table when you enter into a deal with them. These banks do not deserve to be stiffed if they stick to the contract. Their past actions with other customers only concerns you when you decide to do business with them or not. Not after. Would you stiff your friend on a deal if they stick to the contract? You are not coerced.

  2. Kent McManigal
    Kent McManigal July 10, 2012 5:56 pm

    I have. And it didn’t make me happy. I plan to remedy the situation when possible; not for the bank’s benefit, but for mine.

  3. JR
    JR July 10, 2012 6:57 pm


    When I had no steady employment for two years, my family of 7 ran up close to $60,000 in credit card debt (still managed to buy a house in that condition- saved money over renting!). Never missed a payment and our credit rating was phenomenal, even with the debt.

    When I finally found regular work we were stuck- we had to use our cash to pay the credit card companies, so we were forced to continue to make grocery and gas purchases with the card. Even though we were not increasing our debt, we were not getting out of debt either.

    Then the economy took a dive. One after another the credit card companies sent letters adjusting or interest rate from 4%-6% to 29%. Our minimum payments doubled and calls to the credit card companies to try and work something out went nowhere. They started talking about garnishment.

    So we declared bankruptcy. We were willing to recommit to the home loan, but the bank was unresponsive and refused to work with us, so under the bankruptcy it went.

    We tried to make it so our debtors got paid, but I was not willing to drag my family into poverty in exchange, especially in light of the refusal to give any ground.

    I felt guilty and ashamed about the bankruptcy for awhile. Going in front of the court was one of the most embarrassing moments of my life. I felt like a failure.

    Now I have mixed emotions. Bankruptcy still feels like a failure, even though I doubt the various debt-holders suffered for the “loss.” They did change the rules in the middle of the game, which they had the right to do, but by doing so, they made it impossible for me to play anymore. I would have gone on playing and giving them their monthly cut, but when they made that impossible without harming my family, I took the only route that seemed open to me.

    With that $1000+ a month credit card bill gone, we went all cash. It isn’t easy at times, but I won’t play that game again. I tear up every credit card offer they send to my house. I am free and won’t become their slave again.

  4. ff42
    ff42 July 10, 2012 7:14 pm

    Mom and Pop bank no.
    Federal Reserve member: Yes, because they are directly responsible for taking up to 97% of the value of my money (i.e., inflation).

  5. bumperwack
    bumperwack July 10, 2012 10:11 pm

    Well said. Screw the fed. The fiat money’s scam is the root of all our troubles. Everyone in. government from Hussein soetoro on down works for the fed..right down to your local pols

  6. Jim B.
    Jim B. July 10, 2012 11:08 pm

    I have two credit cards from the same bank, but I have never pay a cent in interest. I have but one ironclad rule regarding using my cards, never charge anything that I do not already have the money in the bank for. Most of my charges have to do with distance transactions, especially when it’s cheaper to do so.

    I’d rather do without than pay anything in interest which to me is the same as paying for nothing.

  7. RickB
    RickB July 11, 2012 3:57 am

    When I got divorced 12 years ago my ex got the house and kids. I got an enormous child support bill and $25,000 in credit card debt (she had maxed out all of the cards).
    It took me nine years living in a crummy apartment and driving barely running cars but I paid it all off–and was never late on a child support payment.
    So, I paid back all of that money that I didn’t even spend. Does that make me stupid? I don’t know, but I had to do it for me.

  8. just waiting
    just waiting July 11, 2012 5:54 am

    We’ve been having this conversation in my house for a while now. There’s two different conversations to be had here though, 1 is credit cards and 1 is mortgages.
    I have zero cc debt, but tons of available credit. Why shouldn’t I max out my credit on things like prepper supplies? The people who are now underwater on their houses because they took out home equity loans and spent the money on toys, they may lose the house but they get to keep the toys. Its a difficult moral struggle. The “banks” are crooks, LE is NEVER going to hold them accountable, the only way to punish them is to cut off their flow of money. So since they won’t be held accountable by “the system,” isn’t it the right and/or obligation of the individual to mete out punishment (in the form of withholding support)?

    I didn’t buy more house than I could afford, even though the realtors pushed that way. I didn’t take out equity loans. And I am livid every month when I pay my mortgage and know my investment is losing value because of the shenanigans. I count myself lucky that I am still able to pay it. I abhor what the “banks” are doing, and am morally opposed to supporting the shenanigans with my monthly payment, but I have significant equity in my home that I don’t want to lose.

    Just glad to see others talking about it, again I find that here I’m not alone in the wilderness. Thanks Claire

  9. ILTim
    ILTim July 11, 2012 5:58 am

    Reading your post, I thought I would not breach my contract with a bank unless it was in retaliation for a breach or slight on their part. But I checked the link to make sure I understood the situation.

    There, they are talking about a bank that has extended so much credit to a person that the person is fairly well unable to ever rectify the situation. I’m a little less clear on my decisions in that case. Its like the 105% interest only mortgages at bubble peak, the bank knew the chance it was taking. Both parties knew better, both knew (when the debt was being created) the risks involved. There is nothing securing the debt, aside from agreed slavery from the debtor on hopes of being freed by a future market upswing. Bad deal all around. There’s probably a good business case to be made for Just Don’t Pay.

  10. Joel
    Joel July 11, 2012 6:24 am

    The credit card companies get to diddle with the rules about what you “owe” them without limit and without notice. My honor says pay your debts. At some point you have to start asking yourself what the meaning of “debt” is.

    A contract is an agreement willingly entered into and KEPT by both sides. If they change the terms of the agreement unilaterally, what are my obligations to them? I’ve lain awake many a night tossing that question around.

  11. Peter
    Peter July 11, 2012 6:41 am

    Not a problem! I have walked away from debt. Tried to work it out. Tried negotiating. Tried extending terms. The banks said no, and passed on the bills to the collection agencies. Even after one agency was paid in full on a credit card debt – they still started harassing me on the debt I already paid.

    After 2 years of a living hell, I told them all to go drop dead. Yep, I got sued. My lawyer told me to just forget it. Even with a judgement, if there was nothing to take, there would little they could do.

    Even now, almost 7 years later, I still get calls at times from these vultures. They don’t even know who they are talking to – they just call everyone with a similar last name. I just politely say they have the wrong number, and hang up.

    Hey, with the trillions of dollars in bank bailouts, how come they still get to come after us – the people who paid to keep their sorry asses solvent?

    Just say no? Hell yes!

  12. Jollyprez
    Jollyprez July 11, 2012 6:54 am

    Got whacked by the economy in 2002. We ended up with $85,000 of credit card debt. It took us 5 years, but paid it off in 2007. Bought house same year – then got whacked in 2010 by economy. Had to leave the house.
    We don’t feel particularly good about it, but it should be noted that the bank is up to their eyeballs in graft ( you’ve heard of them ) in all sorts of financial shenanigans.
    Also, they sold our mortgage to Fannie Mae at some point ( though the bank still “services” the mortgage ), and we didn’t know about it. Fannie Mae apparently has a moratorium on foreclosures, because we’ve been waiting 1.5 years for them to hurry up and take it.

  13. Matt, another
    Matt, another July 11, 2012 7:32 am

    Tough question. For most people, it probably rests on personal concepts of honor etc. The playing field is not level. If a bank is to big to fail, they get to do whatever they want to. Occaisionally they pay up a fine, mostly it is for appearance sake or a political pay off. Bank of America knowingly laundered billions of dollars for drug cartels, they get a fine and the people involved get bonuses. The proleteriat such as ourselves would get hard prison time for laundring so much as a pair of socks for the cartels.

    I would not willingly enter into a contract expecting to defraud the other party. However, I would feel no obligation to maintain that contract if I believed the other party was actively trying to defraud me.

  14. Matt, another
    Matt, another July 11, 2012 7:35 am

    Generally speaking I don’t think the banks or other lenders are trying to defraud us. I believe what they are really doing is farming consumers like farmers do livestock. The only thing being produced in the U.S. is debt, the more personal debt that exists the more the banksters have to play with and the more they can earn. If nobody buys the artifical money through debt or bonds, etc then the whole game comes to a stop.

  15. Matt
    Matt July 11, 2012 7:54 am

    I’ve been in a position like that. I took on a mortgage (that I could afford, when I took it on…and with more than 60% equity at closing, thanks to a way-larger-than-necessary down payment), and then lost my job. And spent three years trying to make a business work, while burning through savings. Eventually, it was “pay the mortgage, or eat”. I chose to eat.

    Eventually, of course, the financial situation recovered, and I contacted the bank. I apologized for missing as many payments as I had by then, vowed to both resume regular payments and work with them to catch up on the accrued penalties, and tried to open a discussion about how to do the latter. Their response?

    “Well, you can give us $65,000 right now, or else no deal. And if you don’t make up the back payments immediately, we can’t accept any future payments either.”

    Keep in mind, I wasn’t asking to have the balance forgiven. Nor the interest. Nor the penalties. I was prepared to pay quite a bit extra every month, over and above the normal payments, for a period of a year or two, in order to pay _every cent_ that I owed according to the terms of the loan agreement. If they’d wanted to tack on extra interest or raise the rate or something, I’d have been unhappy about it, but I’d have paid, because I borrowed the money, freely agreed to pay it back with interest, and remained obligated to do so.

    They weren’t interested.

    So I feel no guilt whatsoever. Eventually, either I’ll win the lottery or something and pay them off entirely, or they’ll decide to sell the house out from under me, and we’ll have to move. If they do the latter, they’ll probably get less for it than they’d have gotten from me if they’d negotiated, but that’s their loss. And under the terms of the contract we _both_ agreed to, if they do that, they’re not entitled to recover the difference from me. So they can suck it.

  16. Laird
    Laird July 11, 2012 8:06 am

    I’m sort of with ff42 on this: mom & pop bank, no; giant one, yes. But you can’t just say “Fed member bank”; any bank with a national charter (“national association” or “n.a” in its name) is automatically a Fed member, and some of them are quite small. Also, while the Fed is indeed responsible for the debasement of our currency, its member banks really are not. Only the very largest have any culpability, and they’re the ones taking the bailouts; the government has no problem shutting down small banks (449 of them since 2007).

    As to the modification of credit card terms (notably the interest rate), you do NOT have to accept them. If you don’t, you have to stop using (or return) the card and continue making the monthly minimum payments. (And of course you have to follow the specified notification procedures to let them know that you are refusing the new terms; read the fine print in the notice.) If you use the card again you are deemed to have accepted the new terms, and you’re screwed. But if you can live without that card you don’t have to accept the higher interest rate. Just pay it off under the old terms.

    Personally, I always pay the balance in full every month and so never pay interest on credit cards. But I realize that not everyone can do that, especially if you’ve already dug yourself into a deep hole. Best not to get there in the first place. I hope everyone has learned that lesson this time. Only buy what you can afford.

  17. Claire
    Claire July 11, 2012 8:17 am

    These sad, terrible stories about people trying to do the honorable thing — and getting total non-cooperation or even downright screw jobs from lenders — are too, too familiar.

    I’ve often wondered why bank bureaucrats seem to specialize in turning bad situations into impossible ones. Is it just the stodginess or lack of power of the mid-level manager or the ignorance of the bored & ill-trained person answering the 800 line? Merely the inevitable immobility of institutions? Or …?

    Sigh. Doesn’t really matter in a way. Just so horrible that so many personal financial crashes are caused by institutions that absolutely refuse to work with good, but stressed customers. After that, what choice is left?

  18. MJR
    MJR July 11, 2012 8:25 am

    One thing that I have learned over the years that simple questions are never simple.

    I grew up with the notion that I alone am accountable for my actions. The simple answer to the question would be that I pay my debts. When I have been screwed over, I have simply moved to another institution and made damn sure that everybody new why (10 to 1 rule, piss a person off and they will tell 10 friends, this equals loss of revenue). Lucky me, this only happened once.

    BTW For those who think it’s a great idea to stop paying your debt to the bank one of the things they do is sell your debt to other institutions so the bank still gets paid.

  19. Matt, another
    Matt, another July 11, 2012 8:46 am

    My parents had an odd situation that would fall into this category of discussion. They had a nice place in the mountains. Owned it free and clear. They decided to mortgage it and use that money to buy an adjacent piece. They figured they could pay to mortgage off in just a few years. Deal closed, they diligently made their payments. While doing various research for a piece of business property they were buying they found out that the new deed listing the mortgage had never been legally filed with their county. After some calls by my parents it was believed the deed was filed, by the bank, in the wrong county. The adjacent county just throws misdiled items away. Then my parents attorney did some legal research and found out their bank, which had gone through a merger, had listed their debt as having not been paied and written off their books. His advice to my parents was to stop making payments. 12 years later they still have made no payments, still have the property and still have a deed that is free and clear. It is okay to capitalize on a banks errors.

  20. Michelle
    Michelle July 11, 2012 9:14 am

    hell yeah i stiffed JPMorgan Chase with an underwater mortgage when the lovely Making Home Affordable crap refinance wouldnt go thru. I bought with cash a small homestead in need of repair. NO MORE BANKS.

  21. Mic
    Mic July 11, 2012 10:39 am

    At the moment I am still in the column of honoring my committments. My bank has not screwed me and I haven’t had any horrible crisis that they made worse in the last few years. So for the moment as long as continue to play by the rules we established in the beginning I will continue to play by the rules.

    The other thing to consider is instead of feeling like you are always being shot at by the bank perhaps turn the tables and figure out how you can use their rules against them. I loved the scene from the Matrix where he tells Neil that the Matrix is just a system and that system has rules, but there is a way to bend those rules. The bank is the same way. They are often times a huge system with rules. If you understand the rules you can profit at their expense. Remember rules work both ways.

  22. KenK
    KenK July 11, 2012 11:41 am

    Business is business. Both parties are taking a calculated risk when they make a deal. For business purposes I have used both banks and financial services companies. The BUSINESS owes the money rather than me personally. So if the business can’t pay…liquidation of the business’ assets to pay back what it can, and end of story. No shame, no cloud over my head, no guilt, AFAIC. For my personal stuff I use my local credit union who have never been anything but helpful and cooperative in our relations. Get a free calender every year too.

  23. Ellendra
    Ellendra July 11, 2012 12:01 pm

    Every person would have to decide for themselves, but speaking for me personally, this:
    “banks are corrupt from top to bottom and unilaterally change their “agreements” with us at will, so eff ‘em all. Besides, businesses walk away from billions of dollars in debt without an eyeblink.”

    is not a valid argument. It sounds too much like the “Everybody’s doin’ it” of childhood fame.

    I’m currently trying to pay down medical bills, and the total is so high that I’m honestly afraid to add it up. But I’m paying as I’m able, because my “code of honor” doesn’t allow otherwise. On the other hand, the hospital that, 3 years after I paid them off in full, suddenly decided that I owed them another $60 and can’t explain why? No, I’m not falling for that scam. I paid them what I owed, I’m not paying more than that.

  24. Jason Calley
    Jason Calley July 11, 2012 12:55 pm

    The United States government, in partnership with the Federal Reserve and its member banks is illegally preventing me from using lawful money. In direct contravention of the US Constitution, they have made Federal Reserve Notes legal tender. Even if I try to use US issued gold and silver coins, the IRS will tax me at a rate greater than the face value of the coins involved.

    Imagine a criminal put a gun to your head and threatened you. He told you that he and his gang would kidnap or kill you unless you used their counterfeit money, and that they would be taking a percentage of every transaction you made. Of course, since they have a gun to your head, you would agree. If you later found a way to break that agreement would you be right to do so?

  25. Jason Calley
    Jason Calley July 11, 2012 12:59 pm

    Ellendra says: “On the other hand, the hospital that, 3 years after I paid them off in full, suddenly decided that I owed them another $60 and can’t explain why? No, I’m not falling for that scam. I paid them what I owed, I’m not paying more than that.”

    Wow, same thing (yes, three years later) happened to me, except it was $200. I took my old canceled check along with the original billing marked “Paid in full” to them. They agreed it was an error and that they would fix it. Four years later when I bought a house it showed up on my credit report.

  26. 12bitphoto
    12bitphoto July 11, 2012 2:06 pm

    If the bank is screwing you on a loan it’s because you didn’t borrow enough money. My father used to say that when you owed a bank enough money you owned it. I saw this actually play out with an immigrant friend who had borrowed a lot of money to operate several restaurants. The bank told him they would not renegotiate the note so he essentially said: “here’s the keys, have fun in the restaurant business.” The bank decided it didn’t want to be in the restaurant business, and from then on he dictated the payment schedule.

    At this point the rule-of-law in this country is dead, so conduct is a matter of personal integrity (honor, or whatever you want to call it) between individuals, and expediency and practicality have to be paramount when dealing with our criminal institutions. This country is run by and for a criminal class that considers us peasants mere resources to be managed and harvested for their benefit, and to this class of criminals, honor and integrity are just flaws to be exploited.

  27. The Infamous Oregon Lawhobbit
    The Infamous Oregon Lawhobbit July 11, 2012 3:03 pm

    Contract is a contract. Some people honor them, some people don’t. Handshakes work, other times you need dozens or hundreds of pages, and even then they go sideways. Your mileage – and personal predilections regarding honoring a contract may vary.

    As an aside, the urban myth of “debtor’s prison is revived” needs to have a stake driven through it. People are going to jail for blowing off a court. Regardless of whether said offblowing is for reasons good, bad, or indifferent, I would suggest that not doing what a court has ordered is baaaaaad. And can result in consequences.

    So, today’s safety tip: Don’t blow off a court.

  28. Claire
    Claire July 11, 2012 3:40 pm

    Spoken like a true lawyer, Hobbit.

    As to those debtors prisons being an urban myth … I’d say that’s in the eye of the beholder. You’re absolutely right that the actual thing that puts people in jail is “blowing off a court” and anybody who does that had better understand it’s risky behavior. That said, however, it’s a new thing (since about 2010, as I understand it) for states to be arresting people on behalf of private holders of unsecured debt.

    Back in the 1990s, I won a small-claims court judgment against a guy for $2,000. Did the cops go pick him up when he didn’t pay? Noooooo. Nor should they have. (I never did get my money and in fact spent an extra $200 trying to collect it.) Yet today, in a handful of states, those very same cops are busting people who owe equally small amounts of money to corporations.

    Do we really want to go this way?

  29. Quinn
    Quinn July 12, 2012 2:33 am

    While it may still be too early to ‘shoot the bastards’, at the very least we can stop paying them. The whole system is completely corrupt and amoral. It is far worse than mere robbery, it is slavery, and we willingly participate in it. While I can somewhat sympathize with those who feel it is an issue of morality, and have worked hard to repay those ‘loans’, I ask myself which is the greater ‘morality’…to meet those ‘obligations’ to the banks and perpetuate our own and others (our children’s and grand children’s) perpetual enslavement to an evil (yes, evil) system, or to simply refuse to participate any longer? I see no dignity, nor honor, nor ‘morality’ in submission to a wholly corrupt, demonstrably evil system. Quite the opposite. Will there be repercussions? Of course. Afraid of going to prison? You’re already imprisoned. Actually, it’s something worse than prison.

  30. just waiting
    just waiting July 12, 2012 6:08 am

    Banks used to be held high in public opinion as the trusted holders of deposits and the facillitators of loans. They didn’t used to sell their loans, they collected them. But all that changed.

    If nowhere else, IMHO the games the banks have played with mortgages, securitizations, bundlings, etc have comprimised the integrity of the entire private property ownership system. Sooo many transactions have taken place it would be next to impossible to track and verify them all. Who’s to say who actually owns the ultimate right to any property anymore?

    Some months back, I read about people demanding their mortgage holders prove their right to collect on mortgages. I don’t know if this has any potential to it. Lets say my mortgage was thru Citi. Citi bundled my loan with a hundred others and sold it as a securitized instrument to ABC. 90 of the 100 loans go bad and are uncollectable, so ABC has no cash flow and closes shop. What happens to my mortgage in that case? My loan MAY have been written off as part of the bundle, but I’ll never know and I keep paying Citi, who gladly takes my money without having anyone to send it to. If my loan is part of a bundle being resold for pennies in the dollar, why should I pay that buyer dollar for dollar? Hobbit, may I ply you for your thoughts?

  31. Jim B.
    Jim B. July 12, 2012 8:52 am

    “Banks used to be held high in public opinion as the trusted holders of deposits and the facillitators of loans.”

    Not by everyone, not even by the Founding Fathers with some exceptions, like Hamilton. Probably the most famous is when Jackson paid off the debt at the time and busted up what was the central bank of the time. Lots of people actually preferred to stuff their money into their mattress, literally. Lots of people say that as a joke, but where do you think it came from?

    Banks have always been and continue to be CROOKS, the whole lot of them. Legalized thieves they are.

  32. Tahn
    Tahn July 12, 2012 8:54 am

    A small point.

    In a loan contract, especially where there is collateral involved, there are written and agreed upon contingencies that are invoked when loan repayment is not made according to the contract. This usually involves losing the collateral. So “stiffing” them is not exactly the correct term, you are merely abiding to the terms of the agreement by defaulting. This is especially evident in a pawn loan, where the loaner usually increases their profit when a default happens.

    This is of course, not true in a personal agreement, where honor is the collateral.

  33. Laird
    Laird July 12, 2012 3:36 pm

    I’d like to respond briefly to just waiting’s comment, since it’s clear that he (and probably most others) don’t understand how loan securitization works. I’ve been involved in that field for 20+ years (and am also a lawyer, although not a hobbit) and know something about it.

    When a loan is securitized its ownership is transferred (along with many others) to a trust or similar vehicle. That is a discrete legal entity and is now the legal owner of the loan. The trust then issues bonds, but what the bondholder does with that bond, or paid for it, or whether he has written it down or charged it off, has absolutely nothing to do with the loan itself or the obligation it represents. The trustee (acting through a servicer, Citi in your example) is still collecting the payments. So when you send your monthly payment to Citi it remits it to the trustee, who distributes it to the bondholders in accordance with the trust instrument.

    You have a legitimate right to know who is servicing your loan, so you can be certain that the payments are going to the legal owner of the note (and are thus discharging your obligation). That is what those lawsuits are about: as that market got so frantic and irrational many issuers became extremely lax in properly recording the loan transfers (often long chains of them). If the servicer can’t prove that it is the legitimate representative of the lawful owner of the loan he shouldn’t be able to force payment from you or foreclose on your property. But the issue is not whether or not you owe the money, merely to whom.

    Also, a word about whether a loan has been “written off” or sold at a discount. Neither has any relevance to you as the obligor. Write-down is an accounting term; it’s merely a recognition by the lender that it might not be able to collect the entire amount due. It has no effect whatsoever on your legal obligation; in fact, you have no right to know whether there has been any write-down. Similarly, if a note is sold the purchaser has bought the right to collect the entire legal balance due (including the interest). What he paid for that loan is irrelevant to the borrower. If it was sold at a discount, that merely means that the lender valued a lower amount of cash today more than a higher amount of cash in the future, when and if he could collect from you. The purchaser of the note assumed that risk. But you still owe the money.

Leave a Reply